Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the danger to world peace involved in definite commitments being given by Great Britain in a limited area of Western Europe only and British action being left uncertain elsewhere, he will consider the advisability of making a declaration to the effect that Great Britain is prepared to co-operate with all other States willing to take similar action to the full extent of its resources against aggression in any part of Europe?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): My right hon. Friend has on several recent occasions in this House and elsewhere clearly defined the scope and implications of British foreign policy, and I cannot add to his statements, nor can I accept the implication which the hon. Member draws from them.

Mr. Mander: Do not the Government realise that their present indefinite policy is leading this country straight to war?

Mr. Emmott: With reference to the question on the Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the dangers to world peace involved in indefinite commitments which, by reason of their indefinite nature, form no firm foundation for foreign policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (AERODROMES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have accepted the invitation from the Government of Czechoslovakia to send a British military officer to inspect all Czechoslovak aerodromes; whether the report of such officer

has yet been received; and, if so, whether he will communicate its contents to the House?

Viscount Cranborne: His Majesty's Government have much appreciated the invitation extended by the Czechoslovak Government. They have, however, felt that it would be impossible for a member of His Majesty's Legation individually to carry out such an investigation, and thus to intervene in a controversy between two foreign States in which His Majesty's Government have no direct national concern.

Mr. Henderson: Would the hon. Gentleman say it was intervening in a dispute if representatives of the British Government were to inspect aerodromes, in order to ascertain a question of fact?

Viscount Cranborne: Certainly. It would be intervening in a controversy between two nations.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that some representatives of the Air Ministry have recently gone to Germany to inspect what has been done in military aviation over there?

Viscount Cranborne: The circumstances are absolutely different.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the effect of the Japanese foreign policy upon British interests in China, he will consider making a further general statement on British foreign policy in the Far East?

Viscount Cranborne: I do not think that any general statement such as is suggested is necessary in existing circumstances, but I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Day: Will the House be allowed an early opportunity to discuss this subject?

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member may rest assured that a statement will be made when a suitable moment occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ghab plan for the settlement of the


Assyrians of Iraq has been finally wound up; and whether any alternative scheme has been approved by the Council of the League of Nations?

Viscount Cranborne: As the House is already aware, the Ghab scheme was definitely abandoned in July of last year. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The competent committee of the League Council, in accordance with the instructions of the Council, is continuing its efforts to find a suitable alternative place of permanent settlement for those Assyrians who still wish to leave Iraq. But it is, I understand, not yet in a position to make definite proposals.

Captain Heilgers: How many Assyrians are there still left in Iraq?

Viscount Cranborne: About 20,000, I think.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY (BRITISH POLICE).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give as to the compensation paid or to be paid by the Egyptian Government to those British officers and constables of the Egyptian city police whose services have been or will be terminated in consequence of the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; and as to the progress of his negotiations for the re-employment of these men in the British Colonial or other Services?

Viscount Cranborne: As regards the first part of the question, discussions are proceeding between His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo and the Egyptian Government regarding the compensation to be granted for those British officers and constables of the Egyptian police who are not entitled to a pension and have not already received compensation. In reply to the second part of the question: as regards commissioned officers, my right hon. Friend has already informed His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is prepared to take note, for consideration on the occurrence of suitable vacancies in the Colonial Police Service, of the names of those officers whom he may specially wish to recommend. As

regards constables, certain Colonial Administrations have already been asked by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to discuss with His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo the possibilities of absorbing any of the British constables. I understand that employment has already been found for four constables. The Admiralty are also giving full consideration to the possibility of employing a number of these officers and men at certain of His Majesty's Naval establishments abroad.

Sir J. Mellor: While thanking my Noble Friend for his reply, may I ask him to do his utmost to see that full notice is taken of the record of these men, who bore the brunt of responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in Egypt during a very difficult time?

Viscount Cranborne: I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government will do their very utmost.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give particulars of the report of British naval officers who recently visited Spanish Morocco, and the reason why Melilla air station was not visited?

Viscount Cranborne: In his visits to Ceuta, Tetuan and Melilla, the commander of His Majesty's Ship "Vanoc" was accompanied by His Majesty's Consul at Tetuan, who has furnished a report. No evidence was found of German troops having landed at Ceuta or in the Ceuta-Tetuan area. The Acting Spanish High Commissioner stated that, apart from a few legionaries, the Germans at Tetuan belonged to the Hissma organisation who were studying the possibilities of trade with Germany. There was no evidence of barracks being built at Ceuta for German troops, but there are newly-built blocks of workmen's dwellings. The captain of the port at Ceuta gave assurances with regard to the armament of the defences. At Melilla, the Spanish military commandant stated that there were no preparations to receive German troops either at Melilla or in the interior. The Germans in the town or at Tauima aerodrome were of the air service and were there for the defence of the town, and especially of the iron mines and the


mineral jetty at the port. As far as could be ascertained, the number of Germans at Melilla and the air bases is about 150, but it was understood from the military commandant that their number varied considerably from day to day. Access to the aerodromes was forbidden.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say why permission was not given for access to aerodromes?

Viscount Cranborne: No reason was given.

Mr. Mander: Was it not clearly understood when the invitation was given that access would be given to Ministers to see anything they wished to see?

Viscount Cranborne: I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that access was forbidden, and that the British authorities concerned made use of all the facilities accorded.

Mr. Bellenger: Was not this a matter of controversy between two foreign nations, and is not the Government's policy inconsistent?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir; it was a completely different situation. We have definite treaty obligations with regard to the Moroccan zone.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the Noble Lord say whether the military commandant at Melilla is supporting the Spanish insurgent faction?

Viscount Cranborne: Not without notice.

Mr. D. Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason why the Spanish trawlers "Masso Nueve," "Masso Diez," "Masso Once," "Mordego Tiburon," "Meria," "San Fausto," and "San Gregorio" were handed over to the insurgent authorities; whether the crews who had been detained on these vessels at Gibraltar for six months have been allowed to proceed to their homes; and whether these boats were manned by supporters of the Spanish Government?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have no information on this matter, but I am making inquiries.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the statement that these trawlers were handed over to the

insurgent authorities for naval purposes, and that that was done contrary to the wish of the owners?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no evidence of any such statement; I have seen no statement to that effect. The matter is a complete mystery to me.

Mr. Grenfell: When the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries, will he inform the House if a further question is put down?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will let the hon. Gentleman know, as soon as the authorities in Gibraltar reply, whether the question should be put down to me or to the Admiralty.

Mr. Thurtle: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make telegraphic inquiries in this case, in view of the importance and urgency of the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that that has been done, but here is a large number of names of ships, and the appearance of the hon. Gentleman's question is the first evidence of anything of this kind; I do not know what the source of his information is.

Mr. Grenfell: May I point out that this question has been on the Paper since Friday last?

Mr. Denville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to three propagandist pamphlets issued by the Spanish Embassy in London; and whether he will make representations to the Spanish Government against this breach of diplomatic usage?

Viscount Cranborne: My attention has been drawn to two pamphlets issued by the Press Department of the Spanish Embassy, the contents of which are not of such a nature, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, as to call for representations to the Spanish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (BRITISH BROADCASTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give particulars of the arrangement for daily broadcasts under Foreign Office auspices to Europe on the international situation; and to what extent these represent the official views of the Government?

Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Member presumably refers to the British Official wireless which is compiled in the Foreign Office and is transmitted in the Morse code from General Post Office wireless telegraph stations. These stations have a range which is not confined to Europe. The news messages in these bulletins aim at presenting an objective daily survey of news in this country. So far as the views of the Government on international questions are concerned, these are expressed in these news messages only in so far as they are made available to the public through Ministerial speeches and in other ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS.

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can announce any further allocations under the 1936 programme?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the allocation of the following contracts has recently been announced in the Press:

His Majesty's Ship "Illustrious" to Vickers-Armstrongs, Ltd., Barrow.
His Majesty's Ship "Victorious" to Vickers-Armstrongs, Ltd., Walker-on-Tyne, with machinery by Walls-end Slipway &amp; Engineering Co., Ltd.
His Majesty's Ship "Lassoo" (Tender to Anti-Submarine School) to J. I. Thornycroft &amp; Co., Ltd., Southampton.
His Majesty's Ship "Widgeon" to Yarrow &amp; Co., Ltd., Scotstoun.
The contract for the Fishery Protection trawler "Mastiff" will be placed with Henry Robb, Ltd., of Leith, with machinery by the North Eastern Marine Engineering Co., Ltd. The orders for the remaining vessels of the 1936 programme are likely to be placed in the next few weeks, but I cannot make any further announcement at present.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: In view of the announcement in the Press about the types of vessels at present being built, when may we expect a statement of the characteristics of the new types of cruiser?

Lord Stanley: I will let the right hon. Gentleman know.

Captain Arthur Evans: With regard to the allocation of repairs and renovations, can the Noble Lord say whether the South Wales repair ports will be taken into consideration for the work?

Lord Stanley: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the greater part of this repair work—practically all of it—is done in His Majesty's dockyards.

Captain Evans: Yes, Sir, but, having regard to the special position of South Wales, is it not possible for the Admiralty to give some proportion of the work to these ports?

Lord Stanley: The position has to be borne in mind that we must try to keep the dockyards fully employed, when there is repair work to be done, and that they are particularly skilled in work of this kind.

DOCKYARD WAGES.

Captain Plugge: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the recent agreement between the shipbuilding employers' federation and the shipyards trade unions in respect of an advance in wages of 6s. for a week of 47 hours, with equivalent increases for piece workers; and whether this increase will be reflected by any further improvement in the wage rates paid in Admiralty dockyards?

Lord Stanley: I understand that increases of 4s. a week in time wages and of 8 per cent. in piece rates are about to be made in two instalments in the shipbuilding industry. The board will consider whether in consequence any change in wage rates in Admiralty establishments is called for.

Captain Plugge: Are not the wages paid in Admiralty dockyards superior to those paid in other yards; and does not my Noble Friend think that, in view of the importance of the work in the Naval yards, it is desirable that the Admiralty should lead rather than follow the practice of other yards?

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand, from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question, that he means to say that higher wages are paid in the Government dockyards? If so, may I point out to him that it is not true by a long way?

Mr. Kelly: Is not this question of wages now being dealt with by the trade unions on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council for the Admiralty?

Lord Stanley: I think that all these questions are under discussion at the moment. It is true, however, that the wages paid by the Admiralty are higher.

SERVICE CONDITIONS (REVIEW).

Mr. Alexander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of requests received to date under the new reviews of service conditions, the commands, and the number from each command; the commands, if any, from which the reviews are outstanding; and when the Admiralty expect to be able to announce the first and last instalment of replies?

Lord Stanley: The requests from all commands have now been received at the Admiralty, and total over 4,000. I am unable to give the exact total or the exact number from each command, as different systems of compilation have been used on various stations. I am not at present able to say when the Admiralty expect o issue either the first or the final instalment of their decisions; but I can assure the right hon. Member that it will be as soon as possible.

Mr. Alexander: Can the Noble Lord give any date on which a further question might be put down?

Lord Stanley: I hope that the first main batch, at any rate, will be dealt with during the next few weeks.

SABOTAGE.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give particulars of any acts of sabotage, suspected or otherwise, that have occurred in any dockyards carrying out Admiralty work during the previous 12 months; and whether he can state the cost of making good the damage caused?

Lord Stanley: Five cases of damage or attempted damage to His Majesty's ships in all dockyards carrying out Admiralty work have been reported since 1st January, 1936. Sabotage was suspected in three of these cases. I am glad to say that the cost of making good the damage was not great, but it will be obvious that this is no measure of the seriousness of the consequences which might have resulted.

Mr. Day: Can the Noble Lord say whether there is any knowledge as to who committed these acts, and whether any prosecutions have taken place?

Lord Stanley: No; I do not think any prosecutions have taken place.

Mr. Alexander: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that, in view of the revelations yesterday as to the expenditure on the Secret Service, the results obtained up to date from the sums expended in preventing sabotage are practically negligible?

Lord Stanley: Luckily, very little damage has occurred so far, but, if we had not been able to discover the damage in time, great loss might have been effected. I consider it very likely that it is owing to the knowledge that there is a very effective security service in the dockyards that there has been as little trouble as there has been.

Mr. Alexander: Would it not be better to improve the whole system of supervision of work that is being done, rather than encourage a system of spying?

Lord Stanley: There are some forms of under-hand work that can only be discouraged and found out by special methods.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the improved financial position of the country and the ever-increasing expenses married naval officers at home and abroad have to incur for food, accommodation, pay of servants, etc., he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if married allowance can now be granted to naval officers and the necessary sum be taken in the forthcoming Estimates to make this provision on the same lines as married allowance is granted to Army and Air Force officers?

Lord Stanley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) on 20th May last, and to which I have nothing to add at present. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this question is kept constantly under review.

Sir M. Sueter: I hope that something will be done.

AIRCRAFT (BRITISH AND FOREIGN NAVIES).

Captain Plugge: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate number of aircraft now under the control of the British, Japanese, American, and Italian navies, respectively?

Lord Stanley: The figure for the Royal Navy is 204 aircraft. I understand that the figure for the Japanese Navy is 245 embarked, and 216 shore-based, aircraft; for the American Navy, 475 embarked, and 184 shore-based; for the Italian Navy, 60 embarked, plus a certain number of shore-based reconnaissance aircraft. The Japanese, American and Italian Navies differ from the Royal Navy in that they have control of flying boats and shore-based naval aircraft, whereas the Royal Navy has under its control only the embarked aircraft, the number of which I have already given.

THE CORONATION.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached with regard to enabling any African chiefs to attend the Coronation ceremonies; and what is the reason for the decision taken?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This question is at the present time under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement at the moment. I should add that several Africans will in any case be attending the Coronation as official representatives of the Colonies in which they reside.

MUI-TSAI.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the investigating committee into mui-tsai in Hong Kong and elsewhere has yet reported; and, if so, when its report will be published?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Commission has just signed its report—I understand last Saturday. The report has now been sent to the printers, and I propose that it shall be published here and in Hong Kong and Malaya on 1st March.

Miss Rathbone: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may

I hope that the evidence, or at any rate such portions of it as are not confidential, will be published?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am making arrangements for all the evidence, other than the evidence which witnesses asked should be treated as confidential, to be made available to people who wish to have copies of it, but not for its publication in the report, because that report is already likely to run to 350 closely-printed pages.

KENYA (SOIL CONSERVATION).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps it is proposed to take to give effect to the recommendations of Sir Alan Pim that, in view of the serious increase of soil erosion in Kenya Colony, a careful investigation should first be undertaken as to the best methods of reconditioning the land.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2nd December to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling). An extensive campaign is being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, with the active co-operation of other Departments concerned, such as the Forest, Veterinary, and Public Works Departments, and with the assistance of numerous unofficials. Demonstrations are given of methods of terracing, and re-afforestation is carried out where possible. The hon. Member will realise that the problem, which varies in form, needs to be attacked in different ways in different areas.

AVIATION.

PROPOSED SEAPLANE BASE, LANGSTONE HARBOUR.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has been arrived at between the Air Ministry, Imperial Airways, and Portsmouth Corporation for the construction of a seaplane base at Langstone harbour; and, if so, what are the details of the arrangement?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir. I regret to say that the Corporation has so far


been unable to accept the proposals put forward by the Air Ministry regarding the arrangements for a Government contribution towards the cost of the scheme. Certain further inquiries from the Corporation have been elucidated with their representatives, and it is understood that they will, in the early future, finally review the project in knowledge of its financial implications.

Mr. Montague: Does that mean holding up the North Atlantic scheme?

Sir P. Sassoon: Oh, no, Sir.

Low VISIBILITY FLYING.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to give effect to the rider of the jury at the inquest on the victims of the Dutch air-liner crash on 9th December last, recommending that an officially appointed authority at an airport, and not individual pilots, should decide if any aircraft should take off during periods of low visibility?

Sir P. Sassoon: No, Sir. It is not proposed to interfere with the present well-established practice by which the commander of an aircraft is solely responsible for its movements, subject to the instructions of the company in whose service he is. At all principal airports there are available to him the advice of the aerodrome officer regarding the local traffic situation at the time, and weather reports and forecasts supplied by the Meteorological office of the Air Ministry. A licensed pilot is qualified to assume responsibility for the safety of the passengers and of the aircraft placed in his charge. To delegate any part of the responsibility to other persons would not, I think, be in the interests of the public.

AUSTRALIA (AMERICAN AIRCRAFT).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the decision of His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia to manufacture American aircraft and engines in Australia under licence; and whether English aircraft manufacturing companies were given an opportunity of tendering in this connection?

Colonel Burton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the purchase

by the Australian Government of 20 aeroplanes from America; whether this was done after consultation with his Department; and what steps he has taken to ensure the co-ordination and standardisation in the event of the use of these aeroplanes and those produced in Great Britain or elsewhere for the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. Sassoon: The Commonwealth Government consulted His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with regard to the projected factory early last year and since that time close contact has been maintained. Negotiations have proceeded on the basis that the types of Service aircraft to be produced in the factory would be of British design, and this is accepted by the Commonwealth Government as a general policy. They have, however, informed His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that they have found themselves compelled to place an initial order with the factory for 40 training aircraft of American type. An assurance has been given that this is purely a temporary measure which in no way affects the permanent policy mentioned above. Representations were made that an aircraft of British design should be selected from the outset, and the decision of the Commonwealth Government has been received with very great regret.

TRADE DISPUTE, WOLVERHAMPTON.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether, seeing that the firm of Boulton Paul Aircraft, Limited, Pendeford, Wolverhampton, are engaged in contracts for the Air Ministry, he will say, in relation to the present trade dispute at these works, whether the conditions under the fair-wage clause in acceptance of contracts is being enforced?

Sir P. Sassoon: The contracts with this company embody the fair-wages clause, and no complaint of non-compliance with it has reached the Air Ministry.

Mr. Adamson: Has the right hon. Baronet made inquiries as to the cause of the dispute?

Sir P. Sassoon: I was asked a question about the Fair Wages Clause. If a complaint is made that the Fair Wages Clause is being infringed, we examine the case to see whether that is so. I believe in this instance the demand is that the piece rates should never result in men getting


less than 25 per cent. over the district rate; therefore the infringement of the Fair Wages Clause does not come into it.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Labour the cause of the trade dispute at the Boulton Paul Aircraft Limited, works, Pendeford, Wolverhampton; and whether his Department have taken steps to bring about a settlement through the trade union representatives?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I understand that this stoppage of work took place without the authority of the union of which the work-people are members. Arrangements have been made for a conference between the employers' association and the trade union as soon as work is resumed, and in these circumstances there is no action that my right hon. Friend can usefully take.

SCANDINAVIAN NIGHT MAIL SERVICE.

Captain Plugge: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air by what date it will be possible to obtain British machines suitable for use on the British night air mail service to Scandinavia; and whether, in view of the desirability of British air routes being operated solely by British aircraft, he will give special assistance to the remedying of this matter?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is difficult to say by what date British machines will be available which would be suitable for use on the night mail service to Scandinavia. It is important that the service should be maintained and as the hon. Member is aware, the company has been authorised to employ foreign aircraft for the purpose. In reply to the second part of the question, I would repeat the assurance which I gave to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on 26th November, 1936, that the whole question is being carefully reviewed and that plans are under consideration which will, it is hoped, render possible the early production of new British civil types.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the length of time which during the War elapsed between the first local warning of the

approach of aircraft to London and to Sheffield, respectively; and what these times are likely to be in the event of war?

Sir P. Sassoon: Based on typical examples of aeroplane attacks by day and by night, the time elapsing between first warning and actual attack in the London area was about 45 minutes. In the attacks made by airships the warning period was considerably longer. Sheffield was not attacked by aeroplanes. It was bombed once by an airship, and on this occasion a preliminary warning was given about three and a-half hours before the bombs fell. Since the War the speed of aircraft has much increased, but I think it would be undesirable in the public interest to speculate on the amount of warning which would be feasible under modern defence conditions.

Sir Gifford Fox: How will the public know whether there has been a warning or not?

Sir P. Sassoon: There will, of course, be an organisation for this object.

Sir G. Fox: How would the ordinary individual person know what the warning was?

Sir Hugh Seely: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the licence to manufacture the balloons required for the barrage defence of London against aerial attack has yet been acquired by His Majesty's Government?

Sir P. Sassoon: The balloons ordered for this purpose are in course of manufacture; no question of licence was involved.

Mr. Montague: What other towns besides London are scheduled for barrage?

Sir P. Sassoon: I should require notice of that question.

Sir H. Seely: Why was no question of licence involved when it was said that the licences for these things were to be delivered by the New Year?

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not know to what statement the hon. Baronet is referring. No licence is needed for the balloons which are in course of manufacture in this country.

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any


scheme of insurance against air raids has been prepared or is in contemplation; and, if so, how soon it can be made public?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I cannot add to the answer which I gave on 25th January to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison).

Mr. Wilson: My question does not refer to what outside authorities are doing, but whether the Board of Trade is taking any action in the matter at all?

Dr. Burgin: On the 25th of this month, that is Monday of this week, an answer was given dealing with the particular question of insurance against air raids, to a question identical with that which the hon. Member has, asked to-day. I would refer him to that reply, to which I can add nothing.

Mr. Wilson: I have that question before me now, and it does not give any answer at all.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (MARGARINE).

Mr. Leach: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the outcome of the joint inquiry of the Services into the question of butter versus margarine now going on for almost a year?

Sir P. Sassoon: This question is being considered with the War Office in conjunction with other proposals affecting conditions of service, and it is not possible to announce any decision at the present moment.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Baronet tell me the explanation of this lengthy, mysterious and very reprehensible delay?

Sir P. Sassoon: It does not rest alone with the Air Ministry.

NEW GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.

Mr. Logan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been directed to the strategic position of the Speke aerodrome, Liverpool, with up-to-date electrical service, water supply, abundance of skilled labour, etc.; and is he prepared to consider the position for Government requirements?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether,

in considering the suitability of Maidenhead as a site for the new aircraft factory, he has also had under consideration the advantages of the Liverpool Speke estate with its unlimited acreage, abundant water and electrical supply, and road, railway, and air services?

Sir P. Sassoon: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, which explained the reasons for the original selection of the site of White Waltham. As stated by the Prime Minister, immediate steps are being taken to find a suitable site in Lancashire, and the aerodrome at Speke is being considered in this connection. My hon. Friends will appreciate that until this investigation has been completed, it will not be possible for me to make any further statement. An announcement on the site selected will be made at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Logan: Am I to understand that, in regard to the question of a strategic point in Liverpool, this aerodrome has not been taken into consideration, and that with all the possibilities and facilities and unemployment there is in Liverpool we cannot have an up-to-date place brought within the cognisance of the Government?

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not know why the hon. Member should assume that. I said Liverpool was actually being considered at present?

Mr. Logan: Would it be possible for a deputation composed of all parties to interview the Minister and put before him details of the situation?

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not think that will be necessary as we have people there now.

Mr. Logan: In view of the confusion yesterday, should not something authoritative be brought before the Ministry in regard to the possibilities of Liverpool?

Sir P. Sassoon: There is no confusion.

Sir Percy Harris: In selecting these sites, does the right hon. Gentleman consult other Departments, like the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, so that we shall not be led into another mistake like the last one?

Mr. Brocklebank: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Baronet has all these considerations before him?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, certainly.

Mr. George Hall: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that the claims of the Special Areas for the establishment of factories have been ignored in connection with the proposed aircraft factory at White Waltham, he will take whatever steps are possible to ensure that before any plans of this description are entered into by a Government Department the Minister or Ministers responsible for the Special Areas will be consulted;
(2) whether his attention has been called to Section 5 of the report of the Commissioner for South Wales, issued in July, 1934, in which he specially called the attention of the Government to the suitability of that area for Government factories, especially aircraft factories, owing to its strategic value, the suitability of sites, and the availability of labour; and, in view of that recommendation, will the Government reconsider the proposal of establishing an aircraft factory in White Waltham and construct it in South Wales?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): The reasons for the original selection of this site and of the decision to substitute a different site in Lancashire were fully explained in my reply yesterday to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). It is the policy of the Government to establish new factories in the Special and Depressed Areas so far as practical considerations permit.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of question 45, as to whether the Minister or Ministers responsible for the Special Areas are consulted before any works of this kind are located outside the Special Areas?

The Prime Minister: The whole Government are consulted in these matters in regard to sites, and the Lancashire site was chosen after very careful examination. In the consideration of any site, the question which the hon. Member has put is always borne in mind.

Mr. Hall: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the question of the new site is

now definitely closed, and whether suitable sites in other Special Areas will not be considered, seeing that in South Wales, the percentage of the unemployed is double that of Lancashire, and ought not South Wales to have some consideration in connection with the work?

The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I cannot re-open this matter with regard to this particular factory, as it is now closed. With regard to the latter part of what he said, I would ask the hon. Member to await the Debate which will take place by and by on the special legislation for these areas in which he is particularly interested, and I hope that it may be possible to make a clear statement as to how far the defence programme may be forwarded by work done in these areas.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as head of the Government, call for a report into the number of vacant sites occupied by munition works during the Great War and now awaiting use and occupation, lying in vicinities where there are enormous numbers of people unemployed? I refer particularly to the Burry Port munition site in a place where 70 per cent. of the people are unemployed. That site is vacant and awaiting to be used, and why does not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the use of such sites.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War the considerations that entered into his decision to establish the munition factory at Chorley, Lancashire; and whether he took into account, before deciding on its location, the distress prevailing in the coal areas in and around Wigan?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Apart from purely technical considerations, the main requirements which had to be borne in mind when deciding the location of the filling factory now being erected at Chorley, Lancashire, were low vulnerability from air attack, good transport facilities for the heavy stores handled which require siding connections with a main line railway and good road access, satisfactory labour supply in emergency, and a level site not in proximity to a


highly populated district. The area required was about 900 acres for the factory and 200 acres for the neighbouring magazines. In this, as in other cases, full weight was given to the importance of bringing new work into depressed areas, and the situation in the various districts in Lancashire was fully in mind. The Chorley site was selected, however, as being the only one in Lancashire which fulfilled all the necessary conditions.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that all these requirements are to be found in those districts where distress is the greatest, that is, in the coal fields?

Sir V. Warrender: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Mr. Parkinson: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in Chorley they have a low percentage of unemployment but that in Leyland, the adjoining town, there is practically none, while seven miles away the unemployed population is as much as 30,000 or 40,000?

Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Member apparently does not appreciate the fact that we are not putting up a munition factory, but a filling factory, where the work is of such a character that it entails certain peculiar considerations which have to be borne in mind.

Mr. Parkinson: May I ask whether the information received guarantees that there will be the population required for a filling factory in this area, because it is a slightly populated area, and public feeling is absolutely against a filling factory being placed there?

Sir V. Warrender: I have no reason to suppose that the information received is incorrect or that there will be any difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

THE CORONATION (PROVINCIAL COACHES).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Passenger Transport Board is objecting to passengers, to be conveyed by road from Lancashire for the Coronation celebrations, being taken round London in the same vehicles and suggesting that those passengers be compelled to use London-owned vehicles for this latter purpose; and whether, in view

of the inconvenience which would be thus caused, he can issue instructions that this objection shall not prevail?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): Such applications under Statute go to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ridiculous that omnibuses from another district should not be allowed to be used in London, and will he bear in mind that, if London is able to prevent these buses being used within its boundary, it is possible for Lancashire people to prevent buses from London coming into our county?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not called upon to say what I think is ridiculous. All I can say is that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Parkinson: In view of the possibility of the accommodation of London Passenger Transport being taxed to its utmost limits, could not further consideration be given not only to coaches from Lancashire but from all over the country being used by their owners in the area of London?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Of course, the Traffic Commissioners will take what the hon. Gentleman has said into account before giving their decision. We have also to bear in mind the question of congestion.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will my right hon. Friend see that buses coming from Plymouth or Torquay have at least as good a chance as those of the London Passenger Transport Board? Why should this arbitrary board prohibit people using their cars or buses from other districts on this occasion?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My hon. Friend and I share the desire that the West Country should have what is due to it.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable compensation to be paid in respect of persons killed or injured by untraced cars?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind in the light of any recommendations made by the committee appointed by my right


hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and now reviewing the law relating to insurance against third party risks.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that committee will report?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his decision to withhold publication weekly of road deaths and injuries while giving a new monthly analysis, so as to allay any existing public fears that reduced publicity is an encouragement to reckless road users?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not accept these premises.

Mr. Lovat Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons during 1936 were killed and how many injured by cars that failed to stop after the accident; how many of such cars were traced; and how many untraced?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I regret that the information asked for is not available.

ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a report from the Transport Advisory Council on the co-ordination of the means of transport; and when he will be in a position to make a statement on the Government's national transport policy?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question on a similar subject by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) on 17th June last.

DE-RESTRICTED ROADS.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport how many lengths of road have been the subject of public inquiries under Section 1 of the 1934 Act; and how many of them have been de-restricted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: 302 lengths of road have been the subject of public inquiries

under this Section. Of these, 184 have been or are being freed from restriction.

Mr. Leach: Is it the purpose of the Minister to continue this policy of de-restriction in face of the wishes of all the large municipalities in the matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If Parliament entrusts me with a duty, however invidious it may be, I must discharge it.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to maintain confidence, if he really wants to reduce accidents?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Leach: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing it yet.

LIGHTING (LIVERPOOL-EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the new sodium lighting system which is in operation at one end of the new East Lancashire Road, Manchester to Liverpool; and, if he is satisfied it is a good one, will he consider having the whole length of the road completed with it?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. I have received a favourable report on the lighting in operation on the western end of the Liverpool-East Lancashire Road within the City of Liverpool. The lighting of the remainder of this road is a matter for the lighting authorities concerned.

Mr. Tinker: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing in the matter? Is he aware of the anxiety of the people, and that he has given many promises about his desire to have it done if he got the chance? Now that he has the chance, what does he intend to do?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should put a question in that form. I am not to have any chance until April next.

Mr. Tinker: After April next, what then?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Member must put down a question.

Mr. Guy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the cost of the maintenance of this sodium lighting compares with the cost of the mercury vapour?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should only be too happy to give that information or any other, if my hon. Friend would put down a question.

CARRIERS LICENCES.

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the evidence given on behalf of the railway companies when objecting to the renewal of A and B licences that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to use the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, in order to reduce the number of such vehicles on the roads, he will make a statement on the matter to explain the attitude of his Department and their intentions in future?

Mr. Hare-Belisha: No such statement by me would be proper in a matter which has been determined by Parliament itself.

Captain Strickland: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance that the railway representatives have not had the definite Government authority to make the statement that they made, and further, is it not possible for the Government to make a declaration of their intention in future? Do they mean to use this Act in the way which has been stated in the courts?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have not seen the actual statement, but if it were made, it was made upon the authority of the railway companies, and not upon the authority of the Government. It is the duty of the licensing authority to listen to all objections.

Mr. Cassells: Is the Minister aware of the fact that under the Road Transport Regulations the small haulier is definitely being squeezed out in favour of the large combines?

RAILWAY FARES (LONDON).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal for the purpose of seeing whether some concession in the way of cheaper travelling facilities than those now operating can be granted to young persons working in the area of the county of London?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have no power to make such representations, but Parliament has authorised the local authorities to apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal

for modifications of the fares charged in the London Passenger Transport area or the conditions applicable to such fares.

Mr. Day: What was the result of the representations of the Minister of Labour on the communications made to him on this subject?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot say.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (LIVERPOOL STREET—ENFIELD).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ascertain from the standing joint committee of the London and North-Eastern Railway Company and the London Passenger Transport Board whether any progress has been made with the proposal for the electrification of the Liverpool Street to Enfield line; and whether a definite scheme has been or is being prepared?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, and I will communicate the reply to the hon. Gentleman.

MOTOR VEHICLES (LIGHTING).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport what is the standard strength of light required for each vehicle to have to comply with the Regulations?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would direct the hon. Member's attention to Section I of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, and I will send him a copy of the Regulations made thereunder.

DEFENCE (GRAIN STOCKS).

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether His Majesty's Government have yet reached a decision as to the advisability of increasing the stocks of grain stored in the United Kingdom?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the advantages of storing foodstuffs for defence purposes, as well as of the difficulties with which any such measures are attended. Information as to any decisions reached by the Government will be given whenever this is practicable. I am, however, clear that it would not be in the public interest to make any statement for the time being.

CALTON SITE, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Guy: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can now state what decision has been taken as regards the removal or otherwise of the old Governor's house on the Calton site, Edinburgh, in connection with the scheme for new Government offices?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. A final decision on this question will not be taken until the new Government offices are approaching completion.

EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. Alexander: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolution from the City of Sheffield Education Committee with reference to the growing percentage of education expenditure which has to be met from local rates and the need for revision of the present scale of Board of Education grants; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has considered the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The question of a revision of the grant formula was also laid before him by a recent deputation from the Association of Education Committees. On that occasion he made it plain that he was not prepared to entertain such a revision until further experience had been gained of the working of the Government's proposals for educational reform.

Mr. Alexander: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, in fact, the percentage of expenditure to be met is increasing the contributions of the local authority, and how long does he expect them to go on meeting this increased charge?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement, but we must have more experience, in view of the fact that the grants in respect of elementary school buildings and transport charges were increased only a year ago.

Mr. Louis Smith: Is my hon. Friend perfectly satisfied that there are no items of expenditure put forward by this Committee which are unnecessary, and is he satisfied the Committee is practising every possible economy, and, if he is not so satisfied, will he cause an inquiry to be made?

Mr. Shakespeare: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not a fact that the percentage of grant made by the Board of Education is not fixed upon that, but upon the actual scale of the grants, and is it not a matter for review of the scale of grants?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is based on a number of factors.

MERCANTILE MARINE (STEERING GEAR COMMITTEE).

Mr. Maclay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to put into effect the reports of the Steering Gear Committee?

Dr. Burgin: As a result of discussion with the classification societies and the shipowners, the latter have agreed to carry out substantially the recommendations of the Steering Gear Committee and the classification societies to make the alterations to their rules necessary to ensure general compliance with them.

Mr. Ede: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when that arrangement will come into force?

Dr. Burgin: It will come into force very much quicker than if it were necessary to introduce legislation. The result of the answer I have given is that the matter can now be dealt with by regulations, and the drafting of these regulations will be proceeded with at once.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Member give any date at all?

Dr. Burgin: I think that question had better be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND.

CATTLE.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of cattle owned in Swaziland in 1929 and


1936, respectively, by the three companies, Ranches, Limited, the Barr Ranch, and the Central Mining and David Forbes Ranch; and whether he has any proposals to make for the assistance of the livestock industry of Swaziland?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am not in possession of the figures asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, the position of the cattle industry in Swaziland was examined a few years ago by the Pim Commission, and in accordance with its recommendation assistance has since been given from the Colonial Development Fund towards a scheme for the improvement of native owned cattle in the territory. It was pointed out in the report that such a scheme should also help the European industry by improving the quality of store cattle available.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask whether the most effective way to help the cattle industry would not be to secure the raising of the wage embargo imposed by the Union Government, and also whether he is satisfied that the embargo was imposed for purely economic and not for political reasons?

Mr. MacDonald: I answered a question on that point yesterday, and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the answer.

POPULATION STATISTICS.

Mr. Emmott: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state, separately, the numbers of the English and Dutch population of Swaziland for the years 1920, 1930, and 1935?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Official statistics do not give precise information on this point. But according to the census figures of 1921 there were then 471 English-speaking, 735 Dutch-speaking, and 963 bilingual Europeans living in the territory. No further census was taken until last year, and complete returns of this have not yet been received.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Member aware that there is a sharp decline in the number of English settlers with capital behind them, and will he consider measures to arrest this deplorable development?

CREAMERY.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that five years ago funds were voted for the establishment of a creamery in Swaziland; that the report made by the Swaziland Farmers' Association on this matter was sent to the High Commissioner in 1935; and whether any measures have been taken or are in contemplation for the provision of funds for this object from the Colonial Development Fund?

Mr. M. MacDonald: It has always been contemplated that assistance should be given from the Colonial Development Fund towards this scheme. In 1932 a loan of £6,500 from the fund was approved to cover the capital cost of setting up in Swaziland a creamery which was to be worked by a Co-opertaive Society. Difficulties arose, however, in connection with the financing of the working expenses of the creamery and the trading loss which it was anticipated would be incurred in the early years of operation, so that advantage has not yet been taken of the loan. A revised scheme has recently been prepared and is at present before the Colonial Development Advisory Committee.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a report was sent to the High Commissioner in April, 1935, and that no reply was received by 1st December, 1936? Can he say whether any reply has since been received?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but my answer says that certain difficulties arose which stood in the way of this scheme going through, and that a new scheme has been put up which avoids these difficulties. I hope that the matter will receive early consideration and that the settlers will get an early reply.

EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give figures to show the average annual number of surgical experiments performed upon animals by vivisectors without the use of an anaesthetic; and what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the potential gain to scientific knowledge is commensurate with the suffering caused?

Mr. Lloyd: I presume my hon. Friend refers to severe surgical experiments which usually involve cutting operations. The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, provides that experiments may be performed without anaesthetics on a certificate, called Certificate A, being given that insensibility cannot be produced without necessarily frustrating the object of such experiments. Before my right hon. Friend allows any such certificate to come into operation he always attaches to the licence a condition whereby no operative procedure more severe than simple inoculation or superficial venesection may be adopted in any of the experiments enumerated in the certificate. The kind of experiments to which, I presume, my hon. Friend refers are therefore never allowed without anaesthetics, and consequently the second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. Paling: Has the Under-Secretary any idea of the number of certificates granted in any one year?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say without notice; but there is a return printed by Order of the House.

CIVIL SERVICE (RETIRING AGE).

Major Rayner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that employés in the higher division of the Civil Service have recently had their employment terminated on reaching 60 years of age, notwithstanding that, on appointment, they had been informed that they would earn a maximum pension after 40 years' service and that the examinations on which the appointments were made could only be taken by the candidates at an age which made it impossible for them to serve 40 years before attaining the age of 60, and that, in this manner, certain Civil servants have been deprived of the possibility of earning the maximum pension upon which they had reasonably relied; and what action he is taking in the matter?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut. - Colonel Colville): Article 15 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, provides that it shall be competent for the Head of any Department to call upon any officer of such Department to retire at any time after

reaching the age of 60 on such pension as by the length of his service he is qualified to receive. This Article repeats the provision of Article 10 of the Order in Council of 19th August, 1890. These provisions are well known to all Civil servants, and there is no ground therefore for the suggestion in my hon. and gallant Friend's question that a Civil servant who is retired on age grounds before qualifying for the maximum pension has any legitimate cause for complaint.

PALESTINE (DEATH SENTENCES).

Mr. Muff (for Mr. Pritt): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the emergency legislation in force in Palestine six young Arabs from the Nablus and Tulkarem regions have been sentenced to death; whether the Supreme Court recommended any of the condemned persons to mercy; what action has been taken by the High Commissioner in the matter; and whether he will recommend to the High Commissioner that, in the interests of the general appeasement in Palestine, these death sentences be commuted?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not sure to which particular cases the hon. and learned Member refers, but I am aware that there has been a number of convictions on capital charges arising out of the Palestine disturbances of last year. In two cases petition has been made for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As regards the second part of the question I have no information. As regards the third and fourth parts, I have no doubt that the High Commissioner, to whom the prerogative of mercy is delegated, will take all relevant circumstances fully into account in reaching a decision whether or not to exercise clemency in any of these cases.

ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. Turton (for Mr. Liddall): asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to bring the relative parts of the Ordnance Survey up to date without further delay in order that the usefulness afforded by His Majesty's Land Registry may be enjoyed by the public


during the next two years, at latest, over an increased area covering compulsory registration of title?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The whole question of the revision of ordnance survey maps is being considered by a Departmental Committee. One of the terms of reference of the committee is to consider what measures are necessary to accelerate the revision of maps. The committee have already made certain recommendations in this respect, and as a result the staff of the Ordnance Survey Department has been increased. Still further increases are likely to be made in the near future.

GRESFORD MINE DISASTER.

Mr. De Chair (for Sir Arnold Wilson): asked the Secretary for Mines what would be the cost of printing the evidence tendered at the inquiry into the Gresford mining disaster; and whether, in justice to all concerned and in view of the importance of the evidence as a guide to the prevention of accidents, he will publish it forthwith at a price within reach of colliery officials and the representatives of owners and men?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I am informed that the cost of printing the evidence, including the speeches of Counsel, would be £1,250. With regard to the second part of the question, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that the reports of the commissioner and his two assesors deal fully with the matters he refers to; I shall be glad if he will await the publication of the report and repeat his question after he has studied it, if he still thinks it necessary.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

PRESERVATION OF OLD BUILDINGS.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the need for some active steps to be taken immediately to ensure the preservation of many of our beautiful old buildings and places of great natural charm, and move a Resolution.

TREND OF POPULATION.

Mr. Cartland: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 10th February, I shall

call attention to the trend of population, and move a Resolution.

IMPORTED MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the increased imports of manufactured goods and the adverse balance of trade, and move a Resolution.

AIR RAIDS.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 10th February, I shall call attention to the question of civil protection against air raids, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED.

REGENCY BILL.

"to make provision for a Regency in the event of the Sovereign being on His Accession under the age of eighteen years, and in the event of the incapacity of the Sovereign through illness, and for the performance of certain of the royal functions in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign in certain other events; to repeal the Lords Justices Act, 1837; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Sir John Simon, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Butler; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Cartland and Mr. McGhee; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey and Mr. Edward Dunn.

Report to lie upon the Table.

INADEQUACY OF AIR DEFENCES.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Simmonds: I beg to move,
That this House, while endorsing the Government's programme for Air Defence, urges that the power of this country to resist air attack continues to be inadequate and emphasises the need for increased organisation both to accelerate the production of flying and ground equipment and to protect the lives 'of the people.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking in the House on 12th November, 1936, ended a most remarkable speech with these words:
The whole of our efforts in the field of diplomacy and foreign policy will be aimed at bringing agreement and peace to all foreign Powers. At the same time all our efforts will be devoted to this great question of Defence—the protection of our own people—and we will not relax our efforts for one moment, because we know that while we shall work for the blessings of peace, there can be no peace, in Europe certainly, unless every country knows that we are prepared for war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1936; cols. 1150–52, Vol. 317.]
Therefore, we have the Prime Minister's authority for thinking that this question of the strength of our defences is a peculiarly fundamental one, because upon it rests the peace and the lives of hundreds of millions of people in Europe. It is now nearly three months since the House addressed itself to this problem, and during that period we have been exercised in many directions. Therefore, I feel that I need offer no apology to the House for asking it to give its attention for a brief period to considering where we stand in this all-important question of air defence to-day. Probably if we exclude for a moment the question of the distressed areas, this is the most fundamental and potentially catastrophic problem which faces us in the whole range of national detail. In order that my further remarks may have their correct background, I would like to say that I and my hon. Friends feel unfeignedly thankful to the Government in that they passed, and passed quickly and resolutely, from the period of what I may call the seemings of unilateral disarmament to a more proper consideration of the actualities of European rearmament; but this change, far from permitting this House to enjoy any happy and trustful quiescence, certainly by the very nature of things imposes upon us a special and an urgent obligation for continuous scrutiny and persistent vigilance.
For the sake of good order I propose to deal with the several parts of the Motion seriatim. I first emphasise the fact that, while endorsing the Government's programme for air defence, we require that other considerations should receive attention. These preparations have been many times approved in this House, and I do not think there is any need to dwell upon them this afternoon. But I would like to say that it has been to me, at any rate, a source of increasing satisfaction to find that a large number of Members on the benches opposite, although they may differ from us on points of detail, are coming more and more to see the necessity and the inevitability of increased defences if we are to remain secure. Secondly, the Motion urges that the power of this country to resist air attack continues to be inadequate. In examining this aspect of the question we must go back to 22nd May, 1935, when in this House was announced the Government's determination to increase the strength of the Royal Air Force. This was given form in the Supplementary Estimate of loth July, 1935, which I may recall to hon. Members was:
to undertake a further sheme for the extension of the Royal Air Force. The scheme provides for the formation of 71 new squadrons for home defence by 31st March, 1937,—
I ask hon. Members particularly to note that date—
which would bring the number of squadrons in this country, excluding the Fleet Air Arm, up to a total of 123, and a first-line strength of approximately 1,500 aircraft.
This decision, clearly, was based on the estimate then made of potential dangers in 1937 and succeeding years, and it would be fair, therefore, to the Government if, before examining the tangible results of this expansion programme, we were to review briefly the rise and fall of the European barometer in recent times. Is it the case that the skies to-day are clearer, that the storm clouds have dispersed and spent themselves, or do the shadows of great upheavals still cast themselves across our path? The skies are not clearer. We have witnessed the Abyssinian débâcle, the eclipse of Geneva, the extension of conscription in Germany, the fortification of the Rhineland, the Nazification of Danzig, the nationalisation of the Kiel Canal, the concords between Germany and Italy and between Italy and


Japan and, finally, as if this chapter were not long enough, we have the sickening spectacle of the Spanish war. In short, the story, as the Prime Minister said in the House on 12th November, is one of "ever-deteriorating international conditions." Any suggestion, therefore, that the programme due to be completed by 31st March next can be reduced because the two years succeeding its initiation have been less gloomy than was anticipated, will, I am certain, find no acceptance in any quarter of the House. Nevertheless, on 10th November last, the First Lord of the Admiralty launched himself forth on what was, I thought, a most dangerous apologia. He said the 1937 programme had been incorporated in a larger programme, and he used these words:
I can tell the House that so far as the bigger programme is concerned, that is to say, the programme in which the smaller 1937 programme was merged, the position is satisfactory. The 1937 programme is to a certain extent scrapped. … What is important is not so much the 1937 programme that has been superseded as the larger programme into which it is merged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; cols. 825–26, Vol. 317.]
I do not know if there is any figure of speech which could be termed "all-in wrestling" but, if there is, I think my right hon. Friend must on that occasion have given us what will in course of time prove to be a classic example. I admit that the statement was not controverted—it was nearly 11o'clock when it was made. But I think it would be unfair to allow my right hon. Friend to think that we are able to accept this contention. What are the facts? The total number of aircraft in the 52 home defence squadrons existing in May, 1935, was approximately 575. The first expansion, authorised in May, 1935, of 71 squadrons was to add 925 first-line machines, bringing the total up to 2,500 first-line home defence machines. The larger programme to which my right hon. Friend the First Lord referred, dealt with in the statement relating to defence of 3rd March, 1936, added another 250 machines, bringing the total metropolitan first-line strength up to 1,750 machines. Thus there was an addition of 250 machines, in a programme which now means a total increase of 1,175 machines, so that this larger programme represented in fact only 21 per cent. compared with 79 per cent. in the original, or, as my right hon. Friend

called it, the smaller programme. Further, that 21 per cent. was for an addition during the year 1937–38. Therefore, I think we ought to say definitely, that, taking into consideration the European situation and the obligations of the Government to the House and the country, it is not an acceptable contention that the present programme may properly be allowed to fall vastly in arrears because there is some small programme of 1937–38 amounting to 21 per cent. of the total. I feel that I shall have all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with me on that point.
What have we achieved in this programme? No one in the House would wish to utter a word on the subject of defence which could be construed as against the national interest, but there does fall upon us a particular obligation to give our most earnest attention to all the information which the Government place before us in this House and in the various publications which are issued. For my part, I have studied at length, not only the Minister's statements, but also the monthly Air Force List which is full of information for foreign Powers and for those in this country who take the trouble to read it. If I am wrong in what I glean from the Air Force List, I trust that my right hon. Friend when he replies will correct me. But the Air Force List shows that in the last four months of 1935, the first months in which the expansion programme to the 71 squadrons began to evidence itself in the List, 10 new squadrons were added. During 1936, 22 more squadrons were added, and although I may not speak right up to date because one would not know the squadrons of the last few weeks until the next List appears, there are definitely two and possibly one or two more squadrons that have been formed in 1937. Therefore, it would seem that since May, 1935, we have 34 additional squadrons out of the 71 due for 31st March, 1937. But my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, speaking in this House on loth November last, used these words:
The process of building up squadrons and forming new training units and skeleton squadrons is familiar to everybody connected with the Air FOTCe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1936; col. 741; vol. 317.]
With this warning it is clearly important for us to see what is the significance of the skeleton squadrons to which my right hon. Friend refers. How much flesh is


there in fact upon the 34 squadrons to which I have drawn attention? This is, I think, very easily determined by reference to the Air Force List, because each month the List shows the number of pilots, including airmen pilots, in each squadron. I have had prepared a complete tabulation of all the squadrons formed since May, 1935, and have noted the number of pilots appointed to each squadron in each succeeding month after the first date of entry of the squadrons in the Air Force List. I shall not burden the House with details. Suffice it for the moment to say that it shows, at a rough average, that after six months from the first date of entry of the squadron in the Air Force List the flying personnel was approximately 50 per cent. of full strength—about 50 per cent. That would mean that the squadrons added during the last 12 months, 22 in number, may be regarded as effectively 11 full-strength squadrons. So that we must reduce those 34 squadrons, if we would obtain a fair figure, to 23 squadrons.
One small correction possibly is here necessary, in that the Air Ministry has increased the strength of some of the squadrons since the programme was originally announced. Fighter squadrons, I understand, have been increased from 12 to 14 machines, but light bombers, of which there are a considerable number of squadrons, still remain at 12, and if on the average we assume that the full strength of the squadrons since May, 1935, has been increased by 15 per cent., we then are adopting a very optimistic figure. So that if we say that these 23 squadrons which we arrive at by deducting the II from the 34, need to be increased by 15 per cent. to 26 squadrons, I think, from the information published by the Air Ministry we are not very far wide of the mark.
So, of the 71 new squadrons due in nine weeks from to-day, we have 26 and we lack 45. It has taken us 20 months to get these 26 squadrons. By a simple arithmetical calculation if we proceed at the same rate the remaining 45 squadrons will take us approximately three years. If we double our rate it will take nearly one-and-a-half years, and if we treble our rate it will take one year. Note that trebling the rate would mean the addition of squadrons roughly at the

rate of one per week. One must, therefore, come to the unpalatable conclusion that so far as the Air Force List shows a true picture the expansion programme is somewhere between one and two years in arrears. Now I ask my right hon. Friend, if I am wrong here, to show where I have misunderstood the figures that the Government have published. My system of calculation is the straightforward one, and no one would be more happy than my hon. Friends and myself if when he replies he can show that we have arrived at a pessimistic figure. Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister in his speech on 12th November, made this observation, speaking of the time it took for a democracy to make up its mind:
Democracy is always two years behind the dictator. I believe that to be true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1936; col. 1144, Vol. 317.]
But if, in supplement, a democracy is two years behind in fulfilment of its own anticipations, then indeed the situation is grievous. Can we take any comfort from the situation in other countries? Can the Government fairly say to itself "True, we have not fulfilled this programme, nor have any of the European nations anything like the number of aircraft they expected they would have and we expected they would have by this date?" For my own part I had the honour, towards the end of 1935, of visiting, with the permission of the German Government, one of their most recent aircraft factories, and the efficiency there, the volume of activity there, and the perfection of the product that I witnessed were something that came to me as a great shock.
A friend of mine who has just returned from Berlin, seeing in one of the daily papers that I was to move this Motion to-day, came to see me on Monday because he thought I ought to know what he found in Berlin. He had the opportunity there of discussing with several Britishers resident in Germany and interested in this problem the strength today of the German Air Force. They approached it from many standpoints, but in the end they came to this quite simple basis, and they assure me that it is not very far wrong—that there are to-day, roughly, 150 service German aerodromes and that at each aerodrome, on an average, from all they could see


during the last year or so, there must be 100 planes. That would mean that in total, including training machines, of course, the German Air Force would have something like 15,000 planes. That to us sounds an astronomical figure, but from what I saw 15 months ago and what I understand has happened since then to increase the rate of production of German aircraft, it is by no means impossible, indeed it is completely probable. If, therefore, we take the extraordinarily low figure of 20 per cent. of that total being first-class modern aircraft fit to go into the first line, we arrive at the figure of no less than 3,000 first-line modern aircraft in the German Air Force to-day.
One of the points upon which my friend just returned from Berlin was very insistent was that the efficient modern German twin-engine bombers, for instance, the Junker J.U. 86, which I understand has a top speed of 217 miles an hour, are now coming out in vast quantities and are being made not only in the Junker works, but also in the works of sub-contractors up and down Germany. He also made this very interesting observation, that in view of the relatively small range of these aircraft the German Air Force was not being built up for attacking Russia but for use in other directions. I think that that is a point which should be borne in mind when we are considering this question. I notice that the Air Correspondent of the "Sunday Times," who had the privilege of accompanying the British Air Force officers who were the guests of the German Air Force, states that "The German fighting machines are rather less efficient than ours." If this means fighting in contradistinction to bombing, then there may be some substance in what he says, but I fear that at this juncture that is a very dangerous remark to make, and I would hate to think that the Government were in any way dependent upon the fact that the German bombing squadrons might be less efficient than ours, in coming to any conclusions as to any steps they should take in the immediate future to meet the deficiencies to which I have referred.
We see, and the Government not quantitatively but qualitatively admitted it, that there is a serious deficiency in our expansion scheme. What can be the cause? Is it the pilots that are the

trouble? On loth November my right hon. Friend the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence said:
Over 2,400 pilots have been accepted for training since May, 1935; the pick of over 12, 000 definite applications. … No shortage has yet been experienced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1935; col. 736, Vol. 317.]
Incidentally, the Air Force List shows that 382 of those new pilots have actually passed into squadrons. So unless the realisation of the programme was from the very start an impossibility, it cannot be the pilots who are responsible. Is it the machines? Here it seems, from Ministerial declarations, that we are nearer the mark. How can this surpassingly serious situation, this potentially perilous situation, if I may say so, be rectified in short time? The aircraft industry is at full throttle. We have yet the shadow industry to come into effect, and how soon that will be, hon. Members will gauge for themselves when they recall that the Government decided this week to scrap one site and to start another. But the shadow industry is already casting its shadow across the present aircraft production programme, and I received yesterday morning from the managing director of an important contractor for the present defence programme this most disquieting letter, from which I propose to read an extract to the House. He speaks of the difficulty of obtaining skilled labour and says:
The situation is going to get worse, due to the shortage of skilled labour, which will be accentuated immediately the shadow factories start up. We have been particularly badly hit in the last few months, due to Rootes Securities deliberately robbing our staff of jig and tool craftsmen (some 11 men) and paying them upwards of £2 per week more than we were paying them. In consequence, the work we were engaged upon for the Government has fallen behind considerably. On representing the matter to the Air Ministry, they informed us that they were unable to do anything in the matter. The situation, therefore, from our point of view as a large sub-contractor, becomes almost impossible, in that, in order to obtain labour, we have to pay fantastic wages, whereas the shadow industry are able to squander the Government's money with no regard to the commercial outcome; furthermore, as an incentive they are now offering contracts to more important members of the staff. If this sort of thing continues, the shadow factories will, no doubt, succeed, but during such time as they are building up, other firms such as ours will be forced to turn their attention in other directions. In consequence, the Government's programme will miscarry, and incalculable harm will be done to the industry as a whole.


These shadow factories will not be giving their complement to the expansion scheme for some little time, and the Government must rely on the present industry in the months to come. If, therefore, the shadow scheme is to start dislocating the whole of our present manufacturing output, then indeed it may well be that the programme may be, instead of only one or two years behind, three years in arrears, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will see that there shall be no more dislocating of the production of his present contractors in order that the shadow scheme may get under way in a year's time. But the shadow industry is not yet, and the House may ask me, in view of the fact that I have some knowledge of these matters, what can be be done at the moment in order to increase the output of aircraft.
I would say that the most urgent change is the organisation of what I will call primary supplies. In the aircraft industry the Government have properly insisted that supplies shall only be drawn from this country. I think that for a short period, until the manufacture of raw materials, jigs, tools, and machinery can be increased, the normal suppliers of those products should be permitted by the Government to import from the best sources abroad and thus to meet, temporarily at any rate, the present shortage. I think it is imperative that the Government should not set up their own organisation to bring in these additional foreign supplies, because it needs the keen eye of a specialist inspectorate in each of the producing firms to detect whether in fact the foreign product is up to the standard of the British product. Therefore, I would suggest that the Government might place at the disposal of some of its principal primary suppliers a sum of money, as indeed they have done in the shadow scheme, so that we might have a reserve of raw materials which could be drawn on and could assist forward the production programme. Even for the most elementary machines, such as capstan lathes and the normal automatic machines we are being asked to wait 36 and 45 weeks before we can obtain delivery. If the Government were to adopt this suggestion; scouts

could be sent out in many foreign countries, and suitable products to tide over the immediate future could be discovered.
The other point that I would like to make here is the necessity of some early consideration of the repair of aircraft. As hon. Members know, we are approaching a time when the aircraft at the service of the Royal Air Force will be vastly increasing in speed, and for that we may be grateful indeed. We are going to mount on these machines a large number of relatively inexperienced pilots, and it may be that we shall discover, what Germany has discovered, that the percentage of crashes is fantastically high. In this situation I understand that the German Government have organised separate factories for the repairing of damaged aircraft. It has been the procedure in this country that if an aircraft has been damaged more than can easily be rectified in the squadron, it is sent back to the manufacturer of the aircraft, but, as I have just observed, it is imperative that no additional work should be thrust on the shoulders of the present aircraft manufacturers if they are to increase their output of new and complete machines; and I have here a possible suggestion, in which, I may say, I have not the slightest personal interest. I understand there are several of what are known as unapproved firms which are lacking work. Would it not be possible for the Government to ask these firms to take on the responsibility for the repair each of, say, two or three types of these new aircraft? We should then be keeping these unapproved firms fully occupied, and at the same time there would be the utmost chance of the approved firms, the manufacturing firms, proceeding at maximum speed.
I will not deal with my second point, the need for organising ground equipment, guns, searchlights, and the like, because I know that that will be dealt with adequately by other speakers, but I will say one or two words on the last point, which emphasises the need for increased organisation to protect the lives of the people. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is reported by the "Times" as using these words the other night in Birmingham:
We must not take a panic view, but must as quickly as possible incorporate in the national organisation all reasonable and


practicable precautions which would help to reduce the danger if an air attack were ever made upon England.
I know my hon. Friend is throwing himself with great energy into this question of anti-gas precautionary measures, but, frankly—and I think hon. Members will agree with me here—that is almost the only visible result of the Government's activity in this matter. Is it to be supposed that with this exception of gas the next war will be almost a replica of the last one? My fear is that the Government have not yet organised the protection of the civil population in its several spheres, and I trust my right hon. Friend will state exactly what is the Government's policy.
First—and I will pass over this quite briefly—there is the question of high explosives. When a centre of population is frequently bombarded by high explosives, a large number of civilians will obviously desire to evacuate themselves, though a number, as we have seen in Madrid, will stay on most tenaciously. Is it the responsibility of the Government, of municipalities, or of private individuals to protect the lives of those people who stay? I had a most interesting conversation the other day with the governing director of the company that has just bought Westminster Hospital, to erect there, as I understand, a vast block of modern offices, and I inquired of him whether he was proposing to put an air-raid shelter in that building. He said, "It has never crossed our minds." I wonder whether, in the new offices in Whitehall upon which the Government will shortly be embarking, it has crossed their minds to put some air-raid shelters. Do let us have a statement from the Government as to what their policy is in this matter.
Secondly, there is the question of firefighting equipment. If, in these days of peace, we require 100 fire engines, how many hundred fire engines do we require in the event of an air raid? I understand there is a most interesting publication in the Vote Office on this subject, but it is quite clear that a vastly increased number of fire engines is needed, and perhaps the Government will tell us where they have that vast quantity stored in readiness for the next war, if it should ever break out. Thirdly, there is the question of the docks. The docks of

London handle one-third of the traffic overseas to and from this country, and they take 70 per cent. of the meat and 35 per cent. of the petrol. Clearly it is going to be hopeless to rely that in the next war the London docks can be used to their full capacity, if indeed they will be able to be used at all. Are those store houses, those refrigerating plants, now being erected on the South West and the West coasts so that these ships may dock safely and we may continue to draw our essential supplies from overseas?
Then there is the question of fuel. Many hon. Members go to the Royal Air Force Pageant at Hendon once a-. year, and they will remember those giant skittles that are placed in the middle of the aerodrome for bombers to hit—and if the bombers do not hit them they are upset by somebody pulling a cord along the ground. The complete collapse of the skittles thus seems to be assured, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the collapse of many of those skittles filled with highly explosive petrols and other oils which we see on both sides of all our estuaries would be equally certain at the hands of hostile bombers. What are the Government doing about the storage of these vast quantities of petrol underground where they cannot be attacked?
Another matter which is now very topical is the positioning of factories. Are the. Government going to take the recommendation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas and plan so that the most important factories in their defence scheme—and Heaven only knows what factories in time of war will not be important—are put in an area less vulnerable than London. I was discussing the other day in a company in Paris of which I am a director the erection of an additional factory. The Government there have this matter highly organised. You are not allowed to place a factory on work of national importance within 25 miles of the centre of Paris, and if your products are of increasing importance, it must be 200 miles away from Paris, Have we a similar outlook developing in our midst?
My last point concerns the construction of factories. Some hon. Members may already have seen the beautiful building constructed by the Austin Motor Company for their shadow factory outside Birmingham. There are 17½ acres under one roof. The German idea is


quite different, and my friend who was discussing this matter with me on Monday told me of a factory he visited about 25 miles outside Berlin employing 7,000 hands on aircraft manufacture. Every building is at least 250 metres away from the adjacent building and stands by itself complete. Beneath each building is a gas shelter, an anti-H.E. shelter, complete with living accommodation, food, duplicate water and light mains, Red Cross, and everything necessary for sustaining people for a prolonged period during a raid. Are we doing anything to plan our factories, even if we do not position them correctly, in accordance with the dictates of potential warfare? I fear that there is very little evidence of it, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will bear me out that this is the case. If so little has been done as to permit no announcement, it is greatly to be deplored. If this is prompted by a policy of secrecy, it is fundamentally wrong, because to come out boldly would not only reassure our own people, but would apprise any nation that might be intent on attacking us that hostile squadrons would probably gain so little military result from their efforts that they would desist from attacking us. The chain of defence, as every chain, is as strong as its weakest link. We have grave fears that the weakest links are weak indeed. Ruskin has it:
What boots it at one gate to make defence and at another to let in the foe?
As I began, let me end by reference to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He said on 8th March, 1934, all but three years ago, that the Government
will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1934; col. 2078, Vol. 286.]
In that speech he appealed to the young men. I am still young enough to be a young man, and this day three years afterwards I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the Government are themselves reassured as to the steps they have taken.

4.36 P.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I beg to second the Motion.
I would suggest that it is the general wish of the House that at a fairly early

time in this Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence should reply to the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) portrayed a state of affairs so serious that I am sure the House feels that the Debate must be to a large extent sterile until the right hon. Gentleman has been able to disprove, as we sincerely hope he will do, the statements made by my hon. Friend, or, alternatively, until he has taken the House into his confidence to an extent which the House is entitled to ask with the European situation as it is. Therefore, I propose to say but a few words as regards the figures which my hon. Friend gave us, preferring to wait for the right hon. Gentleman's version of them. The Government need not consider this Motion critical to the extent that it says that air defence is inadequate, because all defence must be inadequate in that it is partial as long as the problem of the air menace exists. The only complete defence for our shores lies in a removal of the danger and the causes of the danger, and those are factors in the foreign situation which are outside the control of this country and the scope of this Debate.
At Question Time to-day the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air replied to a question as to how long warning London had during the last War in the event of an air raid, and how long we would have in future. He replied that in the last War the time was about 45 minutes, and he preferred to give no figures as regards the next war. An easy mathematical calculation shows that, as in the last War aircraft flew at about 80 miles an hour, and as they will fly three times as fast in the next war, there would be but 15 minutes warning for London from the time that hostile aircraft first crossed our coasts. I feel that with the coast of England six minutes away from the Continent of Europe, and London only 15 minutes from the coast, the Government have such an enormous responsibility for air defence that the main point I would like to make is that the effort should be based on two main principles, in respect to both of which the Government can improve their present efforts. The first is to make the nation air-conscious to a much greater degree, and the second is to have incomparably the best technical equipment both in quality and quantity.
Air defence is not the duty of one section of the community, or for the benefit of one section or class. Every section will share in the protection of our shores and everyone will have to pay for it. It is, therefore, necessary that the Government should give the people of the country a far wider understanding of, and a better chance of taking part in, the duties and obligations of air defence than has been the case up to the present. The Government should make the citizens of the country air-conscious, to realise the gift of air transport and the dangers of air warfare in a way that other countries are doing. Germany and Russia are concentrating on an educational force among the young people to ensure that they shall feel enthusiastic for every step that the Governments of those countries take. The Board of Education should, in conjunction with the Air Ministry, educate every child in secondary schools on flying and what it means. There should be practical gliding on a far greater scale than the paltry subsidy now given to one particular body permits. Every boy of 18 who leaves the secondary schools should have a State-aided opportunity of going into the air at least once.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman limit it to secondary school boys?

Captain Balfour: I would like to see every boy in the country given this opportunity, but I wanted it to start in a way which was within the practical scope of the Government, and then to extend it. I want this to be done so that every child leaving school should appreciate that flying is not the privilege of the rich or the super-man, and that all citizens should realise that it is a part of their lives. Voluntary bodies such as the Air League and the National League of Airmen have helped, but voluntary effort is not enough. The co-operation of the civil population is essential, and only if they can share in the responsibility of air defence can we expect their full cooperation. With regard to the second principle that we should have the best technical equipment both in quality and quantity, the Air Force Manual says:
Air superiority is obtained by the combined action of bomber and fighter aircraft. The detailed measures to obtain and maintain the requisite air situation may vary with the circumstances of the campaign, but purely defensive measures will rarely be successful.

That means that we must depend for our technical effort on the ability to strike at any attacking force that tries to strike these shores. My hon. Friend said we are behind in the programme. My figures do not show such a great lag as his, but, at any rate, we are some months behind in the programme. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has altered the answer which he gave to me in reply to a question I put in this House before we rose for Christmas. He then said that the lag was about four months, and that he did not think we should catch it up, but that he hoped the lag would not increase. Does that situation still exist? We know that the Government have had to contend with factors which were not foreseen. Some 20 squadrons were sent to the Middle East, which must have delayed the formation of units.

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The number was 12.

Captain Balfour: I said 20, but I should have said 12. If Germany is so strong as the mover of the Motion said, I do not believe we should turn our backs upon two possibilities, one that of buying foreign aircraft, say from America, for the next year and a half, in order to fill in the danger months until the programme has built itself up, which is until the time when the programme is building up its reserves and the first-line aircraft are complete. The second suggestion is that we should, if necessary, go back to wooden aircraft for a time in order to fill in this gap. As I see it, the bomber situation is serious. There are six bomber firms turning out the latest bombing air-craft in this country. It would not be right for me to give the House a list of these particular firms, but I will go through the records of them one by one. One firm has an order for 320 aircraft, 40 of which were promised by Christmas, but not one has been delivered. There is a second firm which has a contract for turning out bombing aircraft which, owing to a change of locality in its works, and owing to industrial troubles, has turned out none so far. There is a third firm which has some 30 turned out ready for completion but, unfortunately, the engines have not arrived. There is a fourth firm which has delivered no machines but


some 10 are nearly ready to come out of the sheds complete. In the case of a fifth firm I understand the machines are not up to specification. The sixth firm is going well and delivering according to schedule.
One can paint a very dark picture of production at the present time, but, on the other hand, one must admit that we are reading the graph of production at the worst possible moment—just when production should have been coming out but, owing to delays, has not begun. If we can be told by the Minister that the situation is no worse than that, that we shall be catching up, that after 1938 we shall be building up the reserves and that the programme will finish in 1939 up to me, I think we can say that, though we are disappointed, we are reassured. On the other hand, if the Minister cannot give us that degree of reassurance, if he cannot refute the figures which my hon. Friend gave in moving his Motion, I think the House is indeed entitled to take the most serious view of the situation. We none of us want unduly to criticise the Government, none of us want to minimise the difficulties of the Government. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to the electors of this country to see that adequate defence is provided for the country. The Government have been charged with this responsibility by the House. We are not saying that the Government have not fulfilled their responsibility or are not fulfilling it, but we ask that we should have the reassurance that the programme is going on according to plan, has not fallen hopelessly behind and that our trust in the Government to provide adequate air defence is one that can well be continued in the future.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede: As an ex-service man I am bound to feel considerable disappointment that this Debate should be necessary at all. It is one of the major tragedies of our time that people, so far from talking only of whether there will be a next war, have begun to talk about when it will break out. I hope that even now there may be sufficient sense left in Europe and in the world to ensure that we shall avoid the catastrophe towards which we seem to be tending. I wish to ask a specific question about one particular public service with which I am

connected. I am profoundly disturbed about the extent to which the Government realise the danger to the carrying on of industry in this part of the country in the event of a successful air raid owing to the extreme vulnerability of our great electricity stations. As chairman of the Joint Electricity Authority for an area which controls a quarter of the output of electricity in the country, including the whole of that for London and the Home Counties, it is a matter of very grave concern to me, and its importance has been forced on me at nearly every meeting of my authority by my colleagues when we have had regard to the present situation of these stations and the proposals for the extension of electricity supplies.
I understand that there is no better guide for aircraft than a river. That is what I am assured by those who are experts. I have never been in the air, but those who have been assure me that the easiest guide for aircraft, especially at night, is a great river. If one imagines aircraft coming up the Thames, could there be better landmarks than the great generating stations at Woolwich, Barking, Battersea, Lots Road and Fulham? There they are, strung out along a line. My authority was so impressed with the position of affairs that they asked me to see some of those who stand very high in the electricity world with regard to it. I am bound to say that the assurances that I received were of a kind that gave no satisfaction at all. I was assured that the probability was that there would be no direct hit, that the chances of a direct hit were almost negligible. I know that in the last War it took a great deal of lead to kill any one man, but, on the other hand, there was a firm belief among the troops that if your number was on a bullet it would find you, and there were nights during air raids when it seemed to me that it was very nearly my number that was on the bombs. To hear the bombs drop —one, two, three, four, five, six, getting gradually nearer and to be wondering whether there was a number seven was not a pleasant experience; and I cannot help thinking that if we are relying on the comparative difficulty of hitting these great stations, we are not relying on any-thing very substantial. If hostile air craft were sent to this country with in


structions to bomb that line of generating stations I feel the pilots would also know that if they came back without accomplishing their mission there would be very serious trouble for them; and it seems to me that a large flight of aircraft would include at least some men who would be detailed for what, I understand, is called "hell-diving" over these stations, so as to make quite sure that a hit would be recorded.
I was assured by one gentleman who is very high in the electricity world that the probability was that if aircraft came over they might be dropping a bomb to hit Battersea Station and, instead, might hit me sitting here in the House of Commons. That was poor consolation for me; and it would be still less consolation for a man in the Battersea power station if they hit him while trying to hit me in the House of Commons. But I cannot imagine that they would regard me as a very important target. I cannot imagine they would want to hit the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. After all, it is a well-understood thing that people high enough up are always immune from these attacks. The really dirty thing the Italians did in Abyssinia was to bomb the headquarters of the other side. In the late War that was outside the category of "things which were done." For the reasons I have given I do not share the view that bombs are likely to be wasted by being dropped in that way if a definite target has been in view from the moment the enemy aircraft left their aerodromes.
A very astonishing thing has happened. There is now a proposal to erect a new generating station, in order to deal with the great increase in the load in London and the Home Counties, on a site near Gravesend, again on the line of the river, not very far from the Woolwich Power Station. It seems to me that those responsible for the air defence of London should give serious consideration to the wisdom of continuing to put the whole of the generating stations for this area along the line of the river. I know it is felt that the "grid" probably provides more safeguards for the adequate supply of electricity than existed a few years ago, but I suggest that anybody who wished to make a good job of putting munitions works in and around London out of action for several days or weeks would only

have to deal satisfactorily, from their point of view, with the line of generating stations which I have mentioned. That would put the Government and the country and the manufacturers of munitions into very serious difficulties for some time. I sincerely hope that in the consideration of the supply of munitions and the defence of the country this phase of activity will not be lost sight of.
I understand that a very similar situation exists with regard to the milling of flour in this country. I have been assured by those who are closely connected with the industry that the tendency during recent years has been to erect great mills at the ports. The smaller mills in country villages and small towns have practically disappeared, and been replaced by big mills at the ports, by the side of harbours, and I imagine there might be the same kind of difficulty with regard to food supplies as I have suggested in the case of electricity if there were a successful attack on these ports. I can only express the hope that the Government will be able to say something which will indicate that these and similar subjects are receiving their very close attention, and that the great range of modern aircraft has been taken into account in relation to this problem. Those actually engaged in the supply of electricity to the Metropolis and the adjoining counties have the very gravest misgivings with regard to the situation if a successful aerial attack should be launched.
No one wishes to do other than assure the Government that if they are taking the necessary steps to safeguard the carrying on of the life of the country in the event of war and of air attacks, they will receive the support of all sides of the House. I have taken occasion privately to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, from that point of view, he has the sympathy and the support of every Member of the House in the very difficult task to which the Prime Minister has called him. We must expect that the right hon. Gentleman will give us in return for our faith works that will justify it, but I am bound to say that the kind of recital we have had from the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) of the lag in regard to preparation, is the kind of thing that puts a very severe trial on our faith. I am sure that so orthodox a Member of this House as


the right hon. Gentleman would desire in these days of doubt and difficulty to see that faith in at least one person should be maintained.

5.1 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches made by hon. Members, and whilst I must commend them for their anxiety in desiring that the defences of the country should be put into proper order at the earliest possible moment, I am very glad that I have had considerable experience from the other side, that is, from the point of view held by the pilot of a bombing aeroplane, otherwise I should have been very seriously alarmed and frightened. The bombing of objects is not quite so easy as some hen. Members seem to think, and it would be a great pity if it went out to the country generally from this House that the dangers are anything like as great as have been painted this afternoon.
In considering a matter of this kind we should try to get a true picture of what is really likely to happen in aerial warfare in the next war, if we are so unfortunate as to have such a thing thrust upon us. I shall be very glad if any words of mine can in any small way help to contradict that most deplorable but nevertheless very widespread belief that the main use of an air force in the next war will be the indiscriminate bombing of defenceless women and children. In my opinion such a thing will not happen, except in so far as a certain amount must happen through bombs missing their target when strategic points are attacked. I have very good reasons for saying that the deliberate bombing of defenceless women and children is not at all likely to occur. We should realise that an aeroplane, whilst it is very deadly, is an extraordinarily expensive and valuable weapon of war, and the pilot and trained crew of an aeroplane are often more expensive and more valuable. Comparatively negligible damage is done by indiscriminate bombing. The whole history of aircraft as we know it and the whole of our knowledge of human nature teach us that if you want to stiffen the resistance of the people you are attacking and if you want to make what would otherwise be a weakening nation a really strong, fighting power, the very best method you can adopt is to attack their women and

children. Therefore, I cannot believe that any commander would be so entirely unfitted for his job as to indulge in deliberate bombing of defenceless sections of the public.
What, therefore, are the real uses to which aircraft are likely to be put in the next war? If we can get that knowledge into our minds we shall have a very much better picture of the true situation. As I see it, the first duty of an air force in the next war will be to destroy the air force of the opposing country. That is obviously its first duty. In destroying that air force, or even rendering it ineffective, it would be automatically defending the strategic points behind its own lines, the power stations, such as those to which reference has been made to-day, the arms factories, the rail-heads, the munition dumps and so on. Having carried out the destruction of the enemy air force its second duty will, of course, be to make attacks on the strategic points to which I have referred. Therefore, the next thing we need to consider is what type of air force we require and how it is going to be used. We require a certain number of interceptor machines, which would be stationed in and around certain strategic points, and whose job would be purely defensive. They would work in conjunction with such ground defences as it was thought necessary to instal.
The most fatal mistake that you can make is to endeavour to deal with opposing aircraft over your own country. The whole history of the last War and why we were so successful, in spite of our very often having inferior machines, was that we always carried the warfare into the enemy's country. That brings me to what I consider the most important requirement in connection with our aerial force, and that is, that we must have an overwhelming superiority in high performance bombing machines of long-range capacity. I hope that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will be able to give the House an assurance that the main effort of the Air Ministry at the present time is being concentrated on the production of high performance long-distance bombing machines. I hope he will give us that assurance, because it is the whole essence of the problem. I hope that at the same time he will be able to assure us that the Air Ministry is not being panicked into placing orders for


large numbers of machines of a more or less obsolescent type, merely for the purpose of yielding to pressure and producing figures showing that we have so many so-called first-line machines.
There are too many people who are inclined to forget that the all-important thing in air warfare is quality and not quantity. Quality and quantity together are best, but if you have to choose, then have quality and not quantity. There are far too many people who are inclined to express alarmist views by merely totalling up numbers and comparing the relative strength in the air of various countries by the number of so-called first-line machines. That is not a sound way of looking at the thing. If the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence can give us an assurance on these two points, we can well afford, if necessary, to have a little delay.
After having had for a good many years Governments of all parties whose policy has been definitely in favour of disarmament, after having neglected the research which we normally should have been carrying on in this particular field, we have created in the Service, and more particularly in the Air Ministry, the idea that things must not be pushed on as they should have been pushed on. Let me give a little example from my own experience, which impressed me, and which hon. Members may scarcely believe. During my command of an auxiliary bombing squadron it was necessary on several occasions to give displays in which bombing was introduced. There were generally at these displays programmes which had to tell the story of what we were doing so as to make it intelligible to the people on the ground. Hon. Members would be astonished if they could realise the amount of ingenuity that was needed and the amount of time that we had to give to preparing a story which would explain why it was possible for an Air Force squadron to be seen dropping bombs. The susceptibilities of the people must not be hurt and it must not be thought that bombing squadrons existed for the purpose of dropping bombs. Therefore, we had to invent some story why a village was being destroyed, because of some terrible crimes which had been committed by the people inside it. I give that example to show the state of opinion at which we had arrived in this country.
It is unfair to the Air Ministry for us suddenly to turn round and change our policy and expect them by pressing a button to produce the latest types of machines, on which we should have been working years ago. We have to realise that the production of a bombing machine is a very highly specialised job. When people talk about being able in a few hours to convert civilian transport machines into active bombers, they are talking absolute nonsense. There have been produced some very wonderful flying machines and at first sight one would think they were extraordinary good bombing aeroplanes, but it has often been found when they were tested that the designers knew so little about the matter that they did not even consider it necessary for the machines to carry a bombsight. I mention this matter to show the absolute necessity of these machines being properly designed and fitted for their job.
We must have an overwhelming strength in this particular class of machine. The one thing that can save this country is the long-range bombing machine; the long-range bombing machine is the one thing that will give this country some chance of protecting itself, having regard to the hopelessly vulnerable position in which we are situated. A fairly large aerodrome is necessary in order to operate these machines satisfactorily. When a machine of this type is heavily loaded with bombs an aerodrome is very necessary, and if we can successfully bomb the aerodromes of the enemy that will make it impossible for them to get their squadrons off the ground or to land again if they happen to be in the air when we attack the aerodromes. Hon. Members will see, therefore, the enormous advantage that is given by the long-range machine which can go further than the machines of the other side. Otherwise the enemy will be able to reach your aerodromes, whereas his aerodromes cannot be reached. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory assurance from the Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defence. When I think that development has been almost at a standstill for so long, I thank God for the years that the locusts have eaten; otherwise we should probably now have a very large and expensive Air Force equipped with machines which would be absolutely useless for the purpose for which they might be required.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Montague: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) has had to say, but I cannot understand, if he considers it unlikely, or even impossible, that indiscriminate bombing will take place over London, why we should require such a large Air Force of long-range bombers for ourselves. Do we propose to rain indiscriminate slaughter upon other capital cities? The hon. Gentleman has referred to the time spent in qualitative development in the years that the locusts have eaten, but he fails to appreciate that that statement entirely pricks the bubble of the assertion of the Government, and their claim, that they adopted a policy of disarmament in order to lead the rest of the nations of the world towards peace. We adopted our policy as a result of the Trenchard Memorandum in order that we should be able to concentrate upon qualitative development, realising that quantitative expenditure and development in armaments were entirely unnecessary for the time being, owing to the view that there would be no major war in Europe for 10 years.
I imagine that the House would hardly see any resemblance between the hon. Member for Duddeston and the fat boy in "Pickwick Papers," but even the fat boy had some very important things to say, according to the story. If what the hon. Member says is true about the air position in this country, it is time that he urged the Government of which he is a supporter to get out of business and make room for another Government. I am not quite so sure about this flesh-creeping business. I did not know he was going to raise the question of the armament of Germany, but I cannot help thinking that his statement that there are 15,000 aeroplanes in Germany available for service is an extravagant estimate.

Mr. Simmonds: Would the hon. Gentlemen allow me to interrupt? If he is using the term "for service" meaning for fighting, I would point out that I did not say that. My figure included training machines. If he means machines fit to fly, I would agree with him.

Mr. Montague: I hope, when other hon. Members use comparative figures of air forces, they will bear in mind that the home defence in this country is not

represented by the figures which are given officially on the subject. We have training machines too, and we have reserves.

Mr. Churchill: The figure the hon. Member gave was 3,000.

Mr. Montague: The statement about German armaments appears, at any rate to me, exceedingly extravagant upon the face of it, and upon the face of ascertainable figures with regard to the economic position of Germany. A little time ago an article appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" by a leading industrialist of this country, showing, I thought very effectively, that if any-thing like the statements made about German re-armament were true, the figures which we had with regard to raw materials, metals and the general industrial and commercial situation in Germany must be based upon entirely wrong information. It was said to be economically impossible for such a huge air armament to have resulted from the developments of the last few years.
The point I would like to put, among others, to the Government this afternoon is: Why do we have this constant hush-hush policy with regard to air defence? If what the hon. Member has said is true, we ought to look very closely into the question, and the Government ought to be called upon for a frank answer. We do not get frankness from the Government upon this subject. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for Air answered a question which had to do with the time that might be taken by a hostile aircraft from the moment of its first indication to its appearance over London. We were told that it was not in the public interest to give figures upon that point; nevertheless, figures, or estimates based upon known facts, appear week after week in the technical journals. In what way is it opposed to the public interest that we should know those things? Everything appears to be opposed to the public interest, even information about the sacking of dockyard workers. We must not know the facts about that; justice must not be done in this House or anywhere else, because it would be against the public interest to know the facts.
Why should we not know the facts about what other countries can do and what we can do in answer to air attack? What is there against the public interest, that other nations should not know the


facts? One would imagine that we want those people to come here in order to have the delight of seeing them drop into traps that we have made for them. Why should we not know, so far as the Navy is concerned, the latest developments in submarines and cruisers and so forth, as well as the latest developments in aircraft, according to the policy of this Government, which is one of frightfulness and reprisals? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in March of last year, that we were building an Air Force of such a terrifying character—that is his own word—that other nations would not think of attacking us. We can tell the people of Berlin that we are going to bomb them to perdition if the German Air Force does anything to London, and yet we cannot tell the German Air Force that 75 per cent. of their attacking aeroplanes would go to the same salubrious spot; yet that is the estimate of the technical people. They tell us that to-day we are able to prevent at least 75 per cent. of bombing aeroplanes successfully attacking London.
Does anyone imagine that Germany is going to send over here when she knows that she must sacrifice 75 per cent. of her aeroplanes and pilots? I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Erdington about the unlikelihood of London being bombed from the air. If it is true that to-day, within a minute, by means of a sort of cross-section sound principle, it is possible to detect oncoming aeroplanes far away, and, within another 50 seconds, to lay a gun, train a fuse and fire a shell that will, without any question, reach its object, why should we not be told? Why should we be fobbed off with this nonsense about protecting the people of London by gas masks and gas mask drill? I believe that there is a great deal of nonsense spoken about it.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The hon. Member has given a very remarkable figure; he says that we can certainly destroy 75 per cent. of enemy aircraft. May I ask where he got that figure? It is very optimistic.

Mr. Montague: I said that I got it from the people who are technically qualified on the subject. Actually, I obtained that figure from the editor of a technical journal, the "United Forces Review." I do not know whether it is accurate, and

I am asking that we should be told whether it is true or false. Why should we be told that it is not in the public interest to know whether or not we can do these things? I suggest that there appears to be a likelihood that this kind of thing is worked up because the desire is to take advantage of the fears of an uninformed public respecting gas attacks, in order to bolster up and support a recruiting campaign and the rearmament campaign of the Government. Whether the figures be true or not, it is unreasonable to suppose that other countries will bomb London at such a terrifying cost to themselves when they can bring Britain to her knees without the loss of one pilot or one aeroplane; that is to say, if they are successful in concentrating upon certain other methods.
I want to know whether it is likely or unlikely that they would be successful. I am thinking about our food supply. If we cannot get food, and even if we cannot get oil for our aeroplanes for the Navy and for transport, there is no question about the result upon London and the other cities of the country. The other countries do not need to rain gas bombs upon us. The last speaker mentioned the granaries and mills upon our southwestern and western borders, gaunt, white structures, standing up ready to be bombed as targets which could be hardly missed. What are the Government doing about questions of that kind? What are they doing about the protection of our food supplies? Rather than indiscriminate bombing I should imagine that enemy aeroplanes would attempt to smash the Port of London. What are the Government doing about the protection of the roads from those western ports and mills, and those alternative places where we expect there will be a diversion of food supply? Are the alternative roads to be built when the railways are smashed up, to take a stream of lorries and other transport conveying food to this country? I suggest that it is time this House was told whether the Government are doing anything in the matter.
When we are talking about food, raw materials and oil supplies, we cannot divorce the question from the international position, from the position at any rate of this country in regard to the Mediterranean and all that springs from a control of Mediterranean waters. What is the


position at the present time? I am charging this Government with letting the Empire down. It will not do for them to blame the Labour party; the country will send the bill to them. It will not do to say to the country, "Please, the Labour party did not support us in our recruiting campaign." The Government have had six years in office with an overwhelming majority, and what is the position? They have refused to accept our policy. We believe that the policy for which the Labour party has stood would have brought peace, or would have brought us much nearer to peace than we are now. The Government, having refused to accept our policy, cannot blame us. We are entitled to ask them what they are doing to implement their own policy.
What about the position in the Mediterranean? One of the questions answered this afternoon had reference to the Italian Naval Air Arm. We were told that the Italian Navy had control, not only of what we call the Fleet Air Arm, but also of certain land machines. But, apart from that, the Italian air position is about eight times stronger than our position so far as aircraft in the Mediterranean are concerned, and we alone cannot guarantee that the communications with North Africa would not be cut. We have to depend upon an alliance with France. Are we sure that France will always be the kind of country that she is? Are we sure that there is not likely to be, that it is not possible that there will be, a Fascist France before very long, and a Fascist Spain? What will then be our position in the Mediterranean? There is Gibraltar, with no aerodrome and only a few seaplanes or flying boats; there is Malta, quite incapable of defence from the air. We are in a somewhat better position in the Eastern Mediterranean, where we have Alexandria, Haifa, Aboukir and one or two other seaplane bases, and the hinterland up to the Syrian border. But we have Mussolini at both ends of the Suez Canal, controlling Abyssinia and developing the vast mineral resources of that country—with the aid, we are told, of German capital and German technicians—and menacing the Sudan. That has been brought about by a Government who have had an overwhelming majority for six

years. It has been brought about because they have been afraid to face up to bullets, because they have been afraid, really to defend the British Empire. We are not land-locked, but we are lake-locked. The British lion has become a circus lion in a cage, twisting its own tail between its own legs, and this Government is responsible for that position.
What about our raw materials? Take, for instance, the question of merchant shipping. During the last War we had as allies, not only France, but Italy too, and yet we could not allow our merchant ships to go through the Mediterranean, and all the troopships had to be convoyed by Italian vessels. The position is infinitely worse to-day. Our merchant ships would have to be sent round by the Cape, and every extra mile means an extra menace. Can we depend upon that Clapham Junction of the Atlantic, Madeira and the Atlantic Islands? The position now is infinitely worse than it was during the Great War. Again, what about the pipe-line from Iraq to Haifa? Our oil supplies would have to go all the way round to the Persian Gulf. If it is true that other nations cannot get their aeroplanes through, and are not likely to attack London for the technical reasons I have given, the likelihood is that they will concentrate upon submarines and the power of sea craft. What are the Government doing in reference to that matter from the point of view of air defence in the remoter seas? All these questions, I suggest, are questions on which we are entitled to an answer, without the stereotyped statement that it is not in the interest of the public service.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Mediterranean was a vital artery of the British Empire. It may be a vital artery, but it is sacrificed by a policy of apathy, of lack of responsibility, or lack of the acceptance of responsibility, by a Government which refuses to accept the alternative, the alternative being the policy, not of unilateral security, not of unilateral rearmament, but of collective security. The Government can take unilateral action when it likes. It does not ask other countries to pull the chestnuts out of the fire when it is a question of helping Franco in Spain. Then the Government can rake up old Acts of Parliament of the 70's in order to prevent any help


going to one side so that the other side can be assisted. Then, of course, we can take unilateral action. This idea of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire is all very well, but you cannot take up an isolated position in affairs of defence, as could have been done years ago. The chestnuts are still in the fire, they are cracking and popping, and we are going to get the result of the policy of a Government which claims to be a Government defending the Empire, which goes to the country as a patriotic Government calls us unpatriotic, and would drape all its by-election platforms with the Union Jack. The Government have let the Empire down from their own point of view, and, if the hon. Member for Duddeston is correct, the true story is one that ought to make the whole nation gasp, after the confidence that it has given to the present Government.
When is the quarrel between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry going to end? I have mentioned the statement we have had about the Italian air force. The Fleet Air Arm comes upon Navy Votes, but the training and control of personnel is in the hands of the Air Force; and yet the Army Co-operation Squadrons do not come upon Army Votes, but upon Air Ministry Votes. Where are we on that question? The Admiralty say they fear that, if they do not control the Fleet Air Arm completely, the Air Force can at any time under stress withdraw all the aircraft constituting the Fleet Air Arm. They talk about air flotillas being as much an inherent part of the Navy as flotillas of destroyers and submarines. On the other hand, the Air Ministry say that air defence is indivisible, and that the present methods have worked very well indeed. I do not want to enter into the merits of that quarrel, except to say that everyone knows that, if a war does take place, so far as coastal defence is concerned, so far as the major operations with respect to ourselves and the Continent are concerned, it will be the Chief Air Marshal who will take charge, and no one else. I suggest that the fact that that quarrel exists, with all the inefficiencies that arise from it, is the strongest possible justification for some unity in Service control—and I mean something more than the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
There are just two other questions to which I want to refer, one being the question of recruiting. First of all, with regard to the matter of gas defence, I learn that volunteers for Red Cross work and for fire fighting work are not coming in in adequate numbers, and that the meetings which have been arranged up and down the country are very sparsely attended. I think we ought to have some information on that point. With regard to recruiting itself, I would like to make this observation. The difference—the chasm, as it were—between the regimental officer in the Army and the regimental soldier is pretty wide and deep. The ordinary soldier in the Army is much more regarded—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I must point out that the Motion before the House deals solely with air defence. We had better leave the other Services until they arise.

Mr. Montague: I mentioned it in order to refer to the Air Force, and the position of the Air Force. If I may be allowed to finish my sentence, I think you will see that it is relevant to what I have to say. The difference that exists in the Army does not exist in the Air Force, and that is the point that I want to put. I think that even the Secretary of State for War will agree with that. The difference is due to the technical question, to the fact that air officers and air mechanics are highly trained technical men, and the air mechanic is not so likely to regard himself as cannon fodder as was at any rate the old-fashioned soldier. I know that that is the case from my own experience here and outside. But, all the same, there is still a great deal to be said with regard to what we on this side call democratisation. Consider, for instance, the little trickle of airmen pilots that gets through. These airmen pilots, who come not from elementary schools, but from secondary schools and public schools, have to compete with one another; they are not allowed to compete with the university squadrons, the product of the universities; they have to compete with one another. They are very carefully selected, and just a few get through. That, at any rate, suggests to me that the idea still exists that we cannot afford, or that the authorities cannot afford, to


allow the people to control, or take any effective part in controlling, the organisation of the Royal Air Force.
We are very much concerned about this, and we say that, if you want recruiting to be increased, if you want adequate recruiting in the country, you must have regard to this question of how the better educated workman of to-day looks at the matter. The trade unionists, the organised workers, the better type of workers in this country, are not prepared to regard themselves as cannon fodder, and they are not prepared to support a policy of granting full military power to another class of society. I just mention that in passing, in order that the point may be taken by other Members who may wish to take part in this discussion. If you want adequate recruiting, and if you want support for the development of the Air Forces, you will have to make them much more democratic than they are at present, because we have had experience in the world of what we believe the handing over of the military forces of a nation to the ruling class amounts to under certain conditions.

Earl Winterton: Surely what the hon. Member is saying does not apply to the Air Force? They are getting all the recruits they want—almost more than they want.

Mr. Montague: I wonder whether the Noble Lord knows how many they want. I suppose he would be the first to say that the present plan is not the end of our requirements. You have to consider what is to come in the future as well as just the immediate plan, and that particularly applies to another question, the supply of skilled labour. It has been mentioned that tool makers, die-sinkers, and jig makers are not available, even for the present plan, in adequate numbers. How are you going to get that supply of highly skilled labour? You cannot take refuge in schemes of dilution for two reasons. First of all, you cannot train people for that kind of work as you trained certain people during the War. Twenty years ago development was not at the high technical stage that it is at present. It takes time to develop skilled labour of that character. The skilled trades are not going to allow dilution from raw labour to highly skilled labour quite in the same way as was done

between 1914 and 1918. We want more guarantees. We are not going to have trained men in huge quantities, after the emergency is over, thrown upon the streets in order to compete with normal industry and lower the standard of life. That happened 20 years ago. It is not likely to be allowed to happen again.
What are you going to do about this question of skilled labour? If you want the skilled labour, you have to train it. You cannot get on without very much more skilled labour than you have at present. It is about time all these questions were very seriously considered upon new lines. One cannot afford to go back to the old wasteful improvisation of the Great War. We must have plans. I feel that there has been a lot of exaggeration to-day from those responsible for this Motion. I do not think the situation is nearly as bad as it is made out to be. At the same time, if it is, the consequences will come upon the heads of this Government and they cannot throw them off upon any other party in the House or any other body of people. I am glad that the subject has been raised because it is about time that we got down to the real elements of the problem in front of us and got rid of this idea that it is never in the public interest to let the House of Commons or the people know what is happening and what the content of the future is going to be.

5.48 p.m.

Sir T. Inskip: It had been my intention, as I thought it would be in accordance with the wishes of the House, to speak at the end of this necessarily short Debate. I thought that would give me an opportunity of dealing with all the questions that might be raised within the limits of my capacity, but my hon. Friend asked me to speak at an earlier stage so that, if necessary, some further reply can be made later. I am perfectly willing to fall in with whatever is the general wish of the House. The Motion covers a wide ground. It extends not only to the operations of the Air Ministry, but it deals with the work that is necessarily undertaken by other Departments, the War Office or the Home Office, and therefore I have been asked to deal with the matters that have been raised. I will do so to the best of my ability, though a large number have been raised, within the time that it will be right for me to take up.
I do not understand the attitude of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He suggested that the Government had been fomenting anxiety concerning our air defences for the purpose of bolstering up rearmament and recruiting. I thought the party opposite had now, unwillingly perhaps, made up its mind that a considerable measure of rearmament was necessary in respect of all the defence services. When the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the policy of the Government was one of frightfulness and reprisals, I simply do not understand what he is speaking of, because this Government has been reproached not for the policy of excessive frightfulness or of reprisals but for its slowness, its lukewarmness, in making preparations even for the purposes of defence. A Debate of this sort, however quiet and friendly, is felt by the whole House to deal with questions which must continually cause anxiety. It would not serve its purpose if it did not. We do not want to debate academic questions. This is a real live question as to how far the Government have made progress with the steps necessary to defend the country and its interests. The Debate, of course, is bound to concentrate on rearmament. I would point out that it is equally important that, while we rearm, we should concentrate on the search for conditions of peace under which armaments may recede into a limbo from which we all hope they may never appear again on their present scale.
I have a little regretted in the course of the Debate—not that I complain of it; it may be necessary—one or two references which have been made to the nation in Europe in connection with whose policy we have so many Debates. I know that it is very difficult to keep Germany out of any comparisons that may be made because Germany, together with other nations has entered into a statement by the Government in the White Paper as to the reasons for the Government's rearmament policy. At the same time, I think we all feel that, while we are necessarily rearming, we have nothing but the most friendly and peaceable intentions with regard to any of the nations of Europe. The present scheme of air defence, as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, is based upon

the White Paper. It is there for every hon. Member to read. The plan is in no doubt. The hon. Gentleman opposite charged the Government with enveloping this business of our air defence in a veil of mystery. He described this as a hush-hush Government. There was never a more frank statement than appeared in the White Paper of what the Government's plans are in regard to the Air Force. It is set out in almost elementary language for anyone to understand. It is necessary to have in mind what was proposed before we can see how far attainment has marched with plan. It was proposed that there should be an increase in the first-line strength of the Metropolitan Force to a figure of approximately 1,750 aircraft, excluding the Fleet Air Arm but including the Auxiliary Air Force, which was to be increased by four squadrons for co-operation with the Territorial Army.

Mr. Churchill: Would my right hon. Friend mind giving the squadrons?

Sir T. Inskip: I am giving what is stated in the White Paper. I will deal with the squadrons later on. There was no mention of squadrons in the White Paper, but only of the number of aircraft. It was proposed to increase the number of squadrons overseas by 12, and to make a substantial increase within the next few years in the first-line aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm. It was stated that it was intended to provide proper reserves of men and materials to cover the period which would elapse until facilities for continuous supply were made available. On the supply side it was stated that an extension of capacity would be arranged by placing orders with new firms.
That is the scheme that stands to-day. It is a scheme that involves not only the formation of additional squadrons, but includes variations in the relative numbers of the different types of squadrons, in the case of some squadrons an increase in number per squadron and in one case a decrease. I congratulate my hon. Friend the mover of the Motion on his speech, although there were many calculations in it with which I could not agree and some statements that I thought a little far fetched. The existing scheme has meant a variation in the numbers of the different types of squadron, partly with a view to doing that to which my


hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) referred when he spoke of the importance of a large number of long-range highspeed bombers. There is now a considerably different balance between the number of bombers of that character as compared with the provision made in the scheme that has been absorbed in the present scheme. The increase in some cases of the number of aircraft in a squadron has been decided upon solely from the point of view of tactical efficiency. In one or two cases there has been an increase from 12 to 14 in others from 12 to 18, and in one case the number per squadron has been reduced from 18 to 12. These changes are due entirely to considerations of the efficiency of the squadrons having regard to their purposes.
One feature of the scheme is the creation of a great reserve of aircraft. I hope hon. Members will appreciate that in all these computations of first-line aircraft there are behind them a large number of reserves, a policy which has always been part of the Air Ministry plan since our rearmament began. A second feature is the increase in striking power, not merely by replacing light with medium bombers, but also, and still more, by the decision to re-arm the bomber squadrons with new machines of greater power, greater load carrying capacity and greater range. I think that that will be approved of by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington.

Mr. Churchill: My right hon. Friend is, of course, referring to the modifications in the programme, and not to alterations in the actual realised strength?

Sir T. Inskip: I am dealing with what I called two important features of the present scheme, up to a number of about 1,750 aircraft. It may be said that plans are good, decisions are better, but what the House wants to know is the measure of execution or attainment that has been reached. I wish it were possible to place orders for aircraft as one places orders for motor cars. The expression used by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington was that it was not possible to press a button and obtain the aircraft we want. Experience of

everyone at the present time shows how slow, laborious and painful must be the process of building up capacity after a long and leisurely period of production. In the years, from 1930 to 1934, the average number of airframes and engines was round about 700 and 750 for the whole year for the purposes of the Royal Air Force. These numbers are a mere fraction of what is required in annual output under the present programme, and it was necessary for the Government to take measures, with the co-operation of the professional aircraft firms, for the expansion of their capacity, and also for the creation of what is now very familiar to everybody in the House, the shadow industry.
Delays have undoubtedly taken place, and I am going to speak about the reason for the delays and tell the House, to the best of my ability, the extent of the delays. But let the House realise that these are delays in reference to the plan which the Government have laid down for the completion of this scheme. Statements have already been made in past debates about the number of squadrons raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), with great industry, has made a number of calculations. I, fortunately, have been saved the trouble of these calculations, because I have been given the latest information. The present position is that 87 squadrons have now been formed—13 of them are still on the one-flight basis. The House appreciates that the method of forming a new squadron is to hive off, as it were, a flight, and gradually add men and aircraft to that new squadron so as to bring it up in due course to its proper complement. Others of these 87 squadrons are over-strength in personnel, with a sufficient number of aircraft for training purposes.
Let me supplement that information by saying, that it is anticipated that 100 squadrons will have been formed by the end of March. I take the end of March because, in the now absorbed scheme, that was the date that was given as the date by which 124 squadrons would be brought into existence. Of these 100 squadrons, 22 will be on a one-flight basis, that is to say, in the process of being developed into fully equipped and manned squadrons. I am a little hesitant


about giving dates or figures as to the other 24 squadrons to bring up the number to the full 124, but the House knows that the hon. Member's statement, that the Government desire to keep back things which they possibly might properly disclose, is not well-founded, at any rate, not in my case, because I always like to give the House frank information. I am going to take the risk, which may be brought home to me in six months time, of saying that, if our expectations are fulfilled, the remaining 24 squadrons, or, at any rate, 20 of them, will be completed by July next.

Mr. Simmonds: On the one-flight basis, or fully equipped?

Sir T. Inskip: The squadrons will be formed, but I am not able to say that they will all by that time be brought up to their complement. I said that I would speak of the delays and tell the House the reason for them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) asked me to give him an assurance regarding the statement that I seem to have given him in a Parliamentary answer as to there being three or four months delay, and say that the delay was no worse at this moment. To the best of my knowledge and belief—it being impossible in a few minutes to obtain detailed figures—the position is not worse by any manner of means. As he says, we are at a point where the line of the graph is really on a slowly rising scale. The line of ascent will become steeper and steeper as the months go by. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion, by ingenious calculations, said that, as it has taken two years to produce the present number of aircraft, if you multiply that by some number you will find that it will take another two or three years to produce the number of aircraft necessary to make up the necessary squadrons. That is a calculation which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet appreciates is not really a sound one. It sounds all right at first sight, but when you realise that it is the period of difficulty in the production of new types of modern machines, it is not quite as simple as that.

Mr. Simmonds: May I insist that if the speed were the same, it would be three years, but if it were three times the speed, it would be one year. I leave the

right hon. Gentleman to decide what the speed would be.

Sir T. Inskip: If the speed were the same it would follow, and if it were increased the time would be reduced. My hon. Friend was quite safe in making that observation. I do not speak of these delays in the role of an apologist, still less in the rôle of one who seeks to excuse himself or the Government. I would rather speak as narrator of plain facts and leave the House to judge for itself. Again, I ask the House to affirm my claim, when I say, I never attempted to paint rosy pictures of the Defence Programme of the Government. I have been content to give what have often been sober and disappointing facts. Not in a very long time, I hope, I may reap my reward, if I outlive the reign of criticism which at present is perfectly natural but, none the less painful. I hope and believe that as we surmount our difficulties, the House will be in the happy position, of seeing the full attainment and large production.
There are three main reasons for the lag in completion, for the three or four months between the promise and the performance. I have not a word to say in reproach of the aircraft firms. They, in fact, under-estimated the difficulties of large-scale production, but there is no blame to be attached to them in that matter. It was a very difficult business producing new machines under large-scale production conditions as compared with what I call the leisurely conditions of the years before we began. At any rate, all the Government plans were based upon the estimates and statements of the manufacturers themselves. They were orders that were best designed to produce satisfactory types at the earliest date, but anybody familiar with these matters will realise, what I am told is the case to-day, that this is a period of rapid changes in aeronautical technique. That is perhaps illustrated by the change over from the biplane to the monoplane. I speak as a child in these matters, and can only put these things forward for consideration of those Members who understand these technical matters.
Another difficulty which was referred to by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion is that of getting skilled draughtsmen and skilled labour and machine tools which has thrown obstacles in the way of


the manufacturers, for which assuredly they are not to be blamed. Still, the fact remains that the difficulties involved in the production of these new types of machines have been greater than they anticipated. The House will realise and will agree with me in thinking, that the Government have not been wrong in the way in which they have placed orders for the new machines while the machines have still really been in the stage of design. We might have followed the old method, produced a prototype or two, tested them, and then begun production. The Government deliberately adopted the other plan, of which, I think, experience shows the wisdom of building—taking off the drawing board, to use a colloquial expression —the new machines and testing them after they had been actually produced and learning the lessons, sometimes the hard lessons, of disappointment until the type was perfected. We are satisfied that we made no mistake over that because in spite of the delays that have happened, we are still a long way ahead of the schedule that would have been possible if the whole method of building the prototype and testing had been followed.

Mr. Churchill: That would have been about seven years.

Sir T. Inskip: I should not put it as high as that, but it would have involved much more delay than the present plan. Incidentally, the plan which I have mentioned avoids the loss of millions of the taxpayers' money which would have been consequent upon scrapping. There would have been no difficulty in the way of the Government forming the new squadrons at a much earlier date, if we had taken the rosy path of ordering old types of machines. We have not done that, and I hope the House will approve the action of the Air Ministry in that respect.

Mr. Churchill: There has been considerable replacement in the last few months of machines designed seven years ago.

Sir T. Inskip: We have strained to the utmost capacity the ability of the aircraft manufacturers to produce machines of a novel type. If we had put every single manufacturer upon the latest and modern machines, I doubt very much whether we should have had a sufficient supply for the purpose of keeping the squadrons going. To the fullest extent possible we

have not taken the easy path of ordering old and obsolescent types, but we have ordered new and modern types, and I hope that we shall be commended by the House for that.
The House, I am sure, will wish me to pay a tribute to the staff at the Air Ministry for the way they have worked under such exceptional strain. The Director of Aeronautical Production and the whole of his staff have worked with unrestrained devotion, and with success in accelerating to the utmost of their ability the output of new types of machines. That is the first reason for delay, but as the hon. and gallant Member will realise, it is a reason which will not recur. The difficulties which have been met and which are being overcome will not delay production once they are overcome. What is the second reason for delay? It is that we sent to the Middle East, to the Mediterranean and to the Aden Command 12 squadrons with full complements to reinforce the squadrons already there. That caused considerable delay in the expansion scheme. The third reason for delay is rather more important. It is the ambitious nature of the expansion scheme which has caused delay in the early stages. In the normal way the number of flying training schools would have been much less than they are. There are 11, employing a large number of personnel and aircraft. The suggestion has been made that the numbers should be reduced. I believe the House will agree with me that it would be literally fatal to reduce the number or the standard of instructors and turn out young men with insufficient training. Our airmen are second to none in the world and our young men seem to have a natural capacity and genius for the air. They ought to enjoy, at any rate, that which it is our duty to give them; the best and longest training that is possible. I believe the House will approve the decision of the Secretary of State for Air in maintaining the flying training schools and the personnel and aircraft which are necessary at their full number, even at the expense of not being able to form squadrons with the men and the aircraft which are being used in this way.
The House may say that it is not yet satisfied that the Government are doing all that is necessary for the purpose of providing the country with air defences


which are necessary so far as aircraft are concerned. The hon. Member who moved the Motion made one or two suggestions. He agreed that there is nothing more we can do as far as pilots are concerned, because there is an ample supply of pilots. I do not think he suggested there is anything more we can do as far as machines are concerned—with one exception. He made a suggestion, repeated by another hon. Member, that we should buy foreign machines. That, naturally, has occurred to the Air Ministry. It has been considered most carefully and fully with a desire which, as everybody will recognise, the Air Ministry must have felt to obtain all the machines possible. But the fact is that the delay in obtaining foreign machines, or the time in which they could be obtained, would be longer than the time in which they could be obtained by using our own resources, and the complications due to the differences in the accessories, in the equipment of machines, would be a serious handicap to the efficiency of our squadrons, and in war time, I will not say would paralyse a particular squadron, but would gravely affect Its efficiency. If we could obtain aeroplanes from any other country we should be only too glad, but it is no good ordering machines from abroad if you do not gain some advantage, and especially if there is some serious disadvantage which might counteract any gain in point of lime, as there is in this case.
The hon. Member made another suggestion. He said that there has been delay consequent on the difficulty of getting machine tools, and he suggested that we should go abroad. I can assure him that this is the policy not only in regard to the Air Ministry, but to all the three Services, which is in operation to-day. I have had the advantage of seeing representatives of the machine tools industry, and they have with great public spirit and common-sense agreed that if a Government Department or a contractor is unable to obtain delivery of machine tools within a reasonable period there would be no objection to obtaining suitable machine tools from abroad. The extent of the imports of machine tools shows how much resort has been had to foreign sources of supply, but I am happy to say that the machine tools position is much better than I expected it to be six months ago, and, generally speaking,

the whole industry is concentrating more and more on the Government programme, and substantial deliveries of machine tools will be complete by the end of the present year. That is the general position. As far as aircraft factories are concerned, I believe that the plans for getting tools from abroad will diminish the difficulties of the manufacturers.

Mr. Simmonds: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not suggest the purchase of complete aircraft abroad. I think, with him, that that would result in great delays.

Sir T. Inskip: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and he will forgive me if I have indicated wrongly the source from which the suggestion came. We have been asked what stage of development the shadow factories have reached. I think my hon. Friend said that one could form a pretty good opinion as to how far they were from production by realising that only this week we have scrapped one of them. That hardly gives an accurate picture of the position. I wish I could hand round photographs I have here showing the very advanced stage of two of them, and they are not the best specimens. But the position of the shadow factories is this—once again I will risk making a prophecy—that they will commence production as far as aeroplanes are concerned in the Austin factory in the autumn of the present year, and, so far as engines are concerned, production will begin in January of next year, that is, in 12 months' time. With the exception of the Rootes factory the erection of these factories is in an advanced stage. I have tried to inform the House of the position wiht regard to deliveries of aircraft and plans for obtaining more production, but if any hon. Member can assist the Government by suggesting methods by which we can obtain a greater output, nobody will be more grateful than the Secretary of State for Air and myself. The suggestion that private aircraft firms should be asked to repair damaged aircraft I will bring before my noble friend, and it may be that under his direction they will be brought into use.
I have been asked a number of questions as to plans for dealing with high explosives and fire-fighting equipment. I can state quite shortly the position. As regards the construction of buildings


which will afford ample protection, a handbook on structural precautions against bombs and gas will shortly be issued containing such proposals as have been found suitable not for keeping out high explosive bombs, but for defending the people against certain consequences. Anybody who realises the power of an high explosive bomb will know that from 20 to 25 feet of concrete, together with a certain depth of earth are necessary to resist a high explosive bomb.

Mr. Churchill: What kind of high explosive bomb? Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to armour-piercing or semiarmour-piercing bombs?

Sir T. Inskip: For a 500 lbs. semiarmour-piercing bomb 20 to 25 ft. of concrete and a certain amount of earth are necessary to keep it out, and anybody can see that it is impossible to erect buildings for the protection of persons on that scale. The real answer is that we shall have our adequate defences available to prevent the oncoming aeroplane ever being in a position to drop its bombs. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) gave some rather extraordinary figures as to the number of aeroplanes which could be shot down. I do not know from where he got them, but, fortunately, we have had no experience upon which we can base any figures of that sort. It must remain in the region of speculation, except for facts which may be obtained from the unhappy conflict in Spain. If the hon. Member has any facts on which his calculations are based, I shall be glad to obtain them.

Mr. Montague: I said in my speech that my information was based upon a technical article in a technical journal. I do not know whether it is true or not, and that is what I am asking the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir T. Inskip: Until there has been an experience from which it is possible to draw inferences, nobody can say. All I can say is that I believe our anti-aircraft defences are the very best that can be devised from the point of view of the guns, the searchlights, the instruments and the methods of detecting aircraft. What more can the Government do? We hope and believe that the skill of our scientists, the ability of our airmen and the excellence of their training will prevent the attacks

ever being brought home to this country. As far as fire-fighting equipment is concerned, the Government have already stated that they will be prepared to make grants towards the cost of the provision of the additional equipment that must be provided for the fire brigade services in an emergency. A great deal more information on this matter was given in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) on 2nd December, 1936, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
With regard to docks, a great many plans have already been made to prepare for the necessary diversion of shipping in case of war, and the protection of the docks has already been included in the plans for the anti-aircraft defence arrangements applicable to the whole country. Special protection will be given to important docks. As to the fuel for the Air Force, naturally steps have been taken to provide an assured supply of aviation petrol as a primary necessity. Plans have been carefully worked out to ensure these. stocks, and I am able to give the House a most ample assurance that not only are the plans well-devised but the steps that have already been taken to lay up these stocks are thoroughly satisfactory. With regard to the location of industry, at present, of course, the Government have no power to prevent factories being put in particular positions, but we have constantly exercised such authority as we possess with a view to influencing their location in a suitable place. Obviously we cannot put the whole of our industries away on the West Coast of Scotland or some place as far removed as possible from attacking aircraft. As far as we are concerned, we have done our best.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked a question as to the vulnerability of electricity undertakings along the River Thames. The interlocking of the electricity system under the grid will, to a great extent, reduce the damage done or the inconvenience caused by the destruction of one undertaking or of two undertakings, and of course the remedies that are possible by linking up the new power stations to take the place of one that has been destroyed diminish it. But one cannot move the electricity undertakings from the River Thames at the present time,


and that will not be possible for years and years. All I can say is that the Government have made adequate provisions for the air defence of London, including the balloon barrage about which. I have spoken in previous Debates.

Mr. Ede: May I point out that I was drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that at the moment it is proposed to erect a further great station at the extreme East of the line close to the Woolwich power station? There will then be six or seven great generating stations within a few miles along one of the best guide routes that hostile aircraft could have.

Sir T. Inskip: I share the hon. Gentleman's solicitude as to the placing of an additional power station in this line of power stations if it is possible to place it anywhere else. Of course, I am not aware of all the details at a few moments' notice, but I will see what are the facts, and I am sure that any influence which the Government are able to bring to bear will be exerted to prevent any further accumulation in the danger area of these central and very vulnerable undertakings. I hope that in my remarks I have, at any rate, disabused the House of the charge preferred against me by an hon. Member opposite that I am guilty of engaging in hush-hush talk when I address the House.
To conclude, I am, of course, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and that means that one of my main duties is to concern myself with the practical work of rearmament. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has another and even more anxious duty to perform. He has carried out the policy of the Government, in the face of overwhelming difficulties, with resourcefulness, and, I think I may properly say, with undaunted courage. I believe he enjoys the full confidence of most hon. Members, and I need hardly say that he has the full confidence of all his colleagues. When he said recently that His Majesty's Government do not regard the re-equipment of the three Fighting Services as our objective, though an indispensable means to our objective, he put in one sentence what I can only repeat this afternoon. Rearmament is not our objective; political appeasement and economic co-operation alone can bring lasting peace, and they go, as my

right hon. Friend said, hand in hand. All of us, irrespective of our position, ardently long for that general settlement by which peace and security may be assured to us and to all countries alike. But until that time comes—and we hope it may be soon—we hold ourselves bound to arm. We shall continue while it is necessary with all the vast resources of this undefeated country to arm in defence of our country and peace.

Mr. Montague: Before concluding, surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to say something specific on the very vital question of the supply of skilled labour?

Sir T. Inskip: The question of the supply of skilled labour has caused constant thought and anxiety in my mind. I can tell the House that when first I began to become familiar with the matters with which I shall have to deal, I thought we were then within sight of the end of the supply of skilled labour available. When July came I thought it would be at the end of October, and when October came I thought it would be in December. Nothing is more remarkable than the way in which, in spite of all our fears, skilled labour is being trained in the different works that are carrying out the Government's programme. There are difficulties and there is, of course, a certain amount of competition between the different firms for whatever skilled labour is on the market. There is not much of it.
I believe that both in the Government services and in the companies the best plan for dealing with the problem of skilled labour is to take in the younger men and train them in the work, which within a comparatively short time they are able to carry out with all the skill and facility of a man of longer experience. I deprecate any excessive competition or labour-snatching between firms engaged in Government work. We are holding conferences on this matter, and there will be one in the near future on the question of skilled labour in the building industry for the purpose of the Government's programme. I hope and believe that with the help and assent, which have been ungrudging, of the trade unions in this matter, as well as with the cooperation of the employers, we shall not fail in our plans through any want of the man-power or the skilled labour that may be necessary.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I am sure we are indebted to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence for having intervened in the Debate before its conclusion and having made a statement which certainly frees him altogether from the charge which was preferred against him from the other side of the House of only dealing with the subject in hush-hush terms. He has placed facts and figures of very solid importance at the disposal of the House and the country for the purposes of examining the rate at which the Air Force expansion programme is being continued. I think we are indebted to him for it. There is just one quasi-technical point on which I would venture to raise a query or express a certain sense of bewilderment, and that is the statement in connection with the provision of air-raid shelters for the civil population, when my right hon. Friend said that it had been ascertained that 20 to 25 feet of concrete were required in order to give protection against an air bomb of 500 lbs. Those who have remembered the battlefields of the Great War and have seen the craters made by i6-inch shells, which have a tar greater velocity and weigh a ton—four times as much—would certainly think that 20 to 25 feet of concrete were a very satisfactory protection. Very few persons in the Great War ever aspired so high as 20 or 25 feet of concrete.
Since these figures were stated on the authority of the Home Office, I have heard distinguished and competent officers express very great doubt as to whether so large a provision as that was required. In any case, the matter does not turn upon the character of the defence so much as upon the character of the projectile. The kind of protection it is desired to give the civil population would not be protection against the semi-armour-piercing or armour-piercing bomb. Very few of these would be carried. If the enemy aeroplanes were to carry semi-amour-piercing or armour-piercing bombs, they would carry a great deal more steel than explosives. The value and importance of their attack would be enormously reduced. The number of bombs which they could cast on a voyage would be enormously reduced. It is not conceivable that there are any objectives short of ships of the sea upon which it would be worth while to use the semi-armour-piercing or armour-piercing bomb. A small

bomb, a mere container of explosives, would be the natural and necessary weapons which would be used to attack the semi-military objectives found in great cities, and still more to attack the population. The idea that it would be worth while to send aeroplanes hundreds of miles to drop semi-armour-piercing or armour-piercing bombs through the night on the chance that they might penetrate some underground shelter in which people were gathered is, I think, much too farfetched. As a matter of fact, the semiarmour-piercing bomb would be the weapon of attack upon the highly-developed and immensely costly ships of war and perhaps upon special objectives, such as power stations and so forth. If it is desired to afford a method of protective shelters for the civil population, an incomparably cheaper scale of protection in concrete would be required than that which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned to us this afternoon. However, that is a matter of opinion.
If we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, I think we are also indebted to the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) for introducing the Debate which has called forth the important Ministerial statement to which we have listened. As regards the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave of air strength, although I have had no conversation with him on this matter, I had, curiously enough, possessed myself of the Air Force List in order to ascertain the official statement of the progress that is being made. One knows that between 70 and 80 squadrons figure in this List and that a very large number of them have only three or four officers apiece—a quite inconsiderable proportion. Here we are within nine weeks of the 31st March, by which time we were promised 124 squadrons. When that promise was made it meant, one supposed, 124 squadrons complete in all respects, that is to say 124 squadrons, with all their flights and the reserve machines which they ought to have—the reserves in the case of our squadrons differing from those in other countries. They were to be completed by 31st March and now we have the figures which the right hon. Gentleman, with perfect candour and courtesy to the House and convenience to the country, has given us this afternoon. There will be, he hopes, on 31st March Rio squadrons instead of


124, and of these 22 will consist of only one flight each.

Sir T. Inskip: To the best of my recollection no date was given in the White Paper for the completion of the expanded scheme which is the present one. The date 31st March, was the date in the original scheme, what I call the absorbed scheme, of 124 squadrons.

Mr. Churchill: As to what is in the White. Paper, I cannot charge my memory, but certainly we have been told not once but a hundred times that 124 was the figure which was being aimed at by 31st March.

Sir T. lnskip: Is now aimed at.

Mr. Churchill: Then there is no difference between us. As to the White Paper I do not want to quarrel about that—I am glad to have no difference with my right hon. Friend on the subject. The fact remains that out of the 124 squadrons there will be only 100. Of these, 22 will consist only of one flight each, and I suppose others will consist of only two flights each. These squadrons are formed very much in the way in which the human race was formed. A rib is taken from one body and starts out on an independent existence of its own. But 22 squadrons, consisting of only one flight each, really cannot bear their part as complete squadrons. They are not in a condition to take part in fighting. They are only nuclei around which are built up new drafts and semi-trained personnel. If we take 22 from 100 it leaves 78 and that is the number which we shall have on 31st March in place of 124. That is to say we shall be 46 short of the promised total.
Now, 46 out of 124 is a considerable proportion, and it must be remembered that when the first programme was mentioned in March, 1935, we already had 52 or 53 squadrons. So we have actually had 25 or 26 squadrons in 20 months and we shall be 46 short of what we hoped to have on 31st March. In order to be punctual in the fulfilment of the programme outlined we would require to do in nine weeks nearly double what we have done in 20 months. It is clearly a serious deficiency. There is no good in pretending that it is a comparatively small thing, that it is just a little falling-short. It is an enormous percentage of deficiency.

Even if you were to assume that all the squadrons which are supposed to be completed were fully equipped, not only in personnel but in machines, even if you were to assume that all of these squadrons were equipped with modern machines, there would still be a great falling-short. And even if the full programme of 124 had been completed by 31st March it would still not have given us parity with the German strength at that dale, or anything like it.
We have been most solemnly promised parity. We have not got parity. Would the right hon. Gentleman rise in his place and say that he could contend that we had parity, at the present time, with this Power which is in striking distance of our shores, in first-line air strength? I am not making any invidious comparisons with regard to Germany. We have no right to assume that any quarrel will ever arise between us and Germany. But that is not the basis on which we discuss military matters. They are discussed on a basis of impersonal potentialities and not of particular nations. Therefore, I say that we have not got the parity which we were promised. We have not nearly got it, we have not nearly approached it. Nor shall we get it during the whole of 1937, and I doubt whether we shall have it or anything approaching it during 1938. I feel bound to make these statements.
The hon. Member for Duddeston spoke also of the strength of the German Air Force, and I am very glad to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his place when I refer to this matter. I hope he will allow me to say that I think he will find that he has again been misled by his advisers in the statement which he made in the Debate in November about German air strength. I ventured to suggest that as a minimum—and I laid stress on the fact that it was a minimum —German air strength then was 1,50o front-line machines. Of course they have increased it since. My right hon. Friend then said that he was advised by his experts—and naturally he could not be expected to ascertain the figures for himself—that that was a very considerable over-statement, or words to that effect, and that the actual number was substantially less. Now I venture to continue to assert the truth of my figures and to repeat that at the very least they had at that date 1,500. They have considerably


more now. Actually, the Germans are believed to possess at least 150 formed squadrons.
I wonder whether the reason why there is a difference between the Government and me upon this point is that I have always counted 12 German machines to the squadron. That is the calculation adopted in France and other countries. The fact, of course, is that the German squadron is organised on the basis of three flights of three machines each, with three machines in reserve. But the three machines in reserve are not reserve machines in the sense that they belong to a different status of efficiency from the other machines. They are in the same class as the other machines, with the same class of pilots. They are absolutely the same as the pilots of the other machines in value and capacity. If, for the purposes of calculation, for what I may call Parliamentary purposes and for making a good show, you count those squadrons at nine machines to the squadron, you get rid of no fewer than 450 machines which are perfectly serviceable machines with first-rate pilots, machines of a modern type, organised in squadrons. They are wiped out as if they did not exist. That makes the figures look better. Whether it has the slightest effect upon the realities, the House can judge for itself.
It is certain that 450 machines of the first order, interchangeable with the best machines in the front-line squadrons, represents something which cannot be wiped out of consideration without the risk of seriously falsifying the data upon which the Govenment and Parliament are forming their opinion. If you take the basis of 150 squadrons at 12 machines to each squadron, it would give a figure of something like 1,800 front-line machines at the present time. I notice that figure is very much the same as the figure quoted in the French Chamber yesterday, and not in any way challenged or disputed, of 2,000 machines for the German first line. If you add to that the squadrons of Luft Hansa machines which could be made available immediately, then the figure of 2,000 machines would be reached. It is clear that our figure, when 100 squadrons are completed, will be barely half that, and when 124 squadrons are completed of course the German figure will have advanced as

their programme proceeds. Therefore, when I said in November last that we had not got two-thirds of their strength, I made, as I have always done on these occasions, a very deliberate understatement. I think one half would be a far truer guide to the relative strength than the figure which I then quoted. Well, that is not parity.
The hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) raised a point of great importance. He was bringing some succour to the Government and saying how he rejoiced about the years which the locusts had eaten, but the actual point of substance which he raised was one of the most disquieting that could be raised. He said that the one kind of aircraft which we required above all others was the long-range bombing machine. If that were to be adopted as the test, then the question of parity would recede to a very remote distance, because there is no branch of our service in which the relative comparison is more unfavourable to us than that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman selected as the most important and decisive of all.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer at present except to say that I hope the Government are taking what steps they can to ascertain all the information which comes to hand about air fighting in Spain. Very valuable and instructive events are occurring in those scenes of horror. It is said that German anti-aircraft guns in groups, electrically controlled, have produced extraordinarily good results upon hostile aviation. At any rate, it seems to me that the whole of that matter requires to be most carefully studied, because anything which can increase our defence against air attack would be of enormous advantage. For my part, I believe that the day will come when the ground will decisively master the air and when the raiding aeroplane will be almost certainly clawed down from the skies in flaming ruin. But I fear that perhaps ten years, ten critical and fateful years, will pass before any such security will come and that in the interval only minor palliatives will be at our disposal.
However, I do not intend to keep the House any more, because we shall have many opportunities in this Session of discussing these Air matters. Certainly


it is the most important question next to the maintenance of peace through a sober and wise foreign policy. Next to that the provision of adequate Air defence is the most important question that can possibly be discussed by Parliament and the nation at the present time. We are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this Debate; the information which has been given by the Minister will be of great help and value for intelligent discussion of this matter in the future; and I trust that we shall resume in much more detail the examination of the state of our Air programme when the Estimates are in due course presented to us.

7.1 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I join with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in congratulating the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on the great service he has done in bringing this Debate before the House. He has made one of the best Air speeches I have ever heard in this House. It shows that he has had good training on the Air Committee upstairs. I congratulate also the Seconder of the Motion on the points he brought forward. I think the whole House listened with great interest to the figures given by the Defence Minister, and we all hope that by July he will have his 124 squadrons. He touched on many other points, among which were the factories. I have visited Messrs. Short's factory, the Bristol Company and the Gloucester Company lately. The Defence Minister says that he has issued instructions for setting up these factories. If you look at the Bristol Company's works you will find that a new factory is being built over five acres of land. That seems to be a big target from the air and it might be better to build small units scattered over the country. I am glad that the Government turned down the Maidenhead site, but it is not a question of whether you fix factories in the Special Areas, of amenities, or of whether the Air Ministry has bought certain land. The chief factor is one of Defence, and when you propose to set up these factories you ought to go into the question of the site from a Defence point of view and get these factories as far North as possible. It may be said that modern aircraft can

reach any factory, but if hostile machines have to cross a large stretch of our territory you are more likely to bring them down. The question of these factory sites ought to be looked into with greater care.
The numbers of machines given by the hon. Member for Duddeston are, I think, fairly accurate when we take Germany's air strength into consideration. In Nuremberg—and I would like to give this figure to the hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition—I was told by a man I knew fairly well and who is in a responsible position, that Germany had 1,800 first-line machines. That was five months ago and they have increased the number since. I think that we may take these figures of the right hon. Member for Epping as very fairly accurate. I have just come back from Malta where I have been on a visit for some months, and I expected on arriving there to find the whole Navy seething with discontent over the Fleet Air Arm question, as the House was informed by the gallant Admiral of the Fleet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). I visited many ships in the Fleet and came in contact with many naval airmen and the airmen of the flying service, and I can assure the House that the Royal Air Force officers and the officers of the Fleet Air Arm get on spplendidly together. I have never seen a body of men work in greater harmony. The younger men, as keen as anything, recognise that there are administrative difficulties, and the senior officers do so as well, but they look to the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, the Secretary of State for Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty to tackle these difficulties and get out a scheme that is workable for everybody. I am certain the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence will do that.
While I was in Malta four flying boats arrived from England, manoeuvred over Sliema, and landed on a fine day in the harbour. Just before then we had had very severe gales and there was a great swell in the harbour when I went aboard the "Glorious." Is it quite fair to send four flying boats to Malta when they have no protection from bad weather? The Marsa Scirocco harbour is open to the winds, and if these boats have to land in bad weather there would be a chance


of their breaking up. Each flying boat costs a good deal of money. I have not got the exact figure, but it is near £40,000. With improvements, the cost may run up to anything like £100,000. These boats would be risked if they had to land in Malta at the present time. Has the Defence Minister gone into Lord Strickland's proposal to build a breakwater at Marsa Scirocco Harbour? Something should be done to protect the harbour from the big swells that come into it. Various figures have been given of the cost of building one of these breakwaters, but it should not be very great. At Marseilles, when I passed, great breakwaters were being built with enormous concrete blocks, and I cannot think that it costs a great deal of money. They are making Marseilles into one of the greatest ports in the world. If France can spend money there I cannot see why we should not spend a little in Malta. This does not concern only the flying boats which may be used for the convoy of our merchant ships but the flying boats which may be used by Imperial Airways. I ask the Minister of Defence to look into this.
The hon. Member for Duddeston said that he would not go into the question of ground forces at all. I want to raise the question of the protection of London. It is now in two hands—the Army and the Royal Air Force. When we set up the first Anti-aircraft Board for the protection of London, to which the right hon. Member for Epping gave approval and encouragement, it was given to the Royal Naval Air Service. We were charged to create this first anti-aircraft defence of London. We ran it with offices over the Admiralty Arch. It was quite successful and worked very well. We set up an area in London and had concentric rings of guns. All went well until the right hon. Member for Epping left the Admiralty. Then criticisms were made, it was thrown overboard and the Army took on the job. It is high time that the whole of the defence of London and our big cities was put under the Air Ministry. I do not know whether they would take on that work. It would add to the efficiency. It has been done in Berlin. I understand that they have a very efficient protection for that city.
The hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) wanted to know during Questions what warning was to be given to the inhabitants when there was an air raid and whether any precautions are taken to warn people in houses, as they do in Berlin. He informs me that they have people in charge of these buildings to tell the inhabitants that an air raid may be coming. In larger buildings they have a man and his staff to tell people to take the necessary precautions. Also, he tells me, they have a specially constructed shovel for dealing with thermite bombs. The Defence Minister has a great deal of work to do and tremendous responsibilities. It is shown by his speech this afternoon, and I would ask him whether he cannot consult the Prime Minister about taking in the Estimates this year enough money to provide for an Under-Secretary to assist him in all supply work. That would relieve him of a good deal of the details of supplies and allow him to apply his great brain to questions of greater magnitude. If that were done it would lead to the more efficient administration of the fighting services.

7.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I am sure that the House listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman leads a double life. He is partly a lawyer and partly a composite soldier-sailor-airman. It is very noticeable that yesterday, when we were debating the subject of the dismissed dockyard workmen, which involved a great many legal niceties, the lawyer was not allowed to speak, but the composite soldier-sailor-airman has spoken to the House this afternoon to our very great advantage. He said that he thought that the Mover of this Motion had been farfetched in his statements. I hope for the sake of the Minister's own reputation that that is true and that these statements are far-fetched, for if they are found in the future not to have been far-fetched but based on solid fact, then I am afraid that the reputation of the Minister will be sadly tarnished and the country will have little reason to remember him with gratitude. He apologised every time he mentioned a technical matter and said "I am a babe in these matters." That does great credit to the Minister's


modesty and diffidence, but I am not quite sure that it is comforting to the country to find that one of the great bulwarks—I think "bulwark" is the right word—of our defence professes himself to be a babe whenever he has to refer to any technical matters.
I listened also with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) in moving his Motion, and I hope he will allow me add my modicum to the chorus of congratulations when he has received. He referred to the statement of the Prime Minister that a democracy is always two years behind a dictatorship. I am afraid that in the matters which we have been discussing to-day the Prime Minister was an optimist if he thought that he and his Government were only two years behind one of the dictatorships which has been mentioned in this House to-day. If Herr Hitler thought he was anything less than five years ahead of our Government, I think he would get rid of most of the people who are working for him at the present time. I wish very much that the hon. Member for Duddeston had expressed some opinion about the claim of the Germans, which has appeared in the Press this week, that Berlin is now absolutely immune from air attack, and I hope that that subject will be discussed in the House some time, because it has an important bearing on the statement of our own Prime Minister that the bomber is always able to get through.
One other point which was mentioned by the hon. Member was the question of the evacuation of the civil population in the case of air raids. I do not know which Minister or Ministers may be charged with thinking out the plans in that connection, but I hope that, whoever he or they may be, they will go and look at the scenes in some of our railway stations on a bank holiday, when a happy, good-tempered, good-natured crowd is trying to get away for a day's enjoyment. The scene is a shambles and nothing else, and that might give the Minister in question some idea of what the scenes are likely to be if it ever becomes necessary to evacuate the civil population of London under conditions of terror and fear.
The next point to which I would like to address myself is the question of the allocation of money in the Estimates between the Air Force and the Navy. The

Mover of the Motion was not altogether satisfied with what is being done in the way of air defence, but if air defence is to be satisfactorily carried out, the money must be forthcoming. Is the Air Force fairly treated in the allocation of the money between the Air Force and the other Services? The Admiralty has always been the spoilt darling of the Conservative party, and as a result of that treatment the Admiralty always expects to get its way when the Estimates are being considered. The original Estimates for 1936–7 showed the Navy getting £70,000,000 and the Air Force £39,000,000, and even then the Admiralty apparently could not find enough money to buy enough ammunition out of the £70,000,000 to enable it to say "Boo" to the Italian goose in the Mediterranean last year. For 10 years the Admiralty has been telling us that it really has got the air weapon cold, thanks to its protective decks, and blisters, and marvellous anti-aircraft guns, and that it does not fear the menace of the air, but, after all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and at the end of all this talk about having established superiority over the air weapon, we had the spectacle of the Navy scuttling out of Malta in terror of Italian bombers. Sir John Salmond told us in 1935 that hostile shore bases existed from which air forces could lay Malta in ruins in 48 hours. The Navy apparently took no notice of that warning, but Sir John Salmond's words proved true last year.
We know from the Prime Minister that a bomber can always get through. The Prime Minister is of course never wrong about these matters, but if, as he says, there is no defence against air attack, then we have to rely upon retaliation, and can we effectively retaliate if we are only aiming at parity in the air? Can we defend London, the best and biggest and brightest air target in the world? We have all heard of the German general who came to London and was heard to mutter, "What a city to loot." But there is not a foreign airman now who comes to London who does not go away saying, "What a city to bomb." Yet the Air Force gets the smallest share of the money which should be used to prevent a crippling attack upon this country from the air. Remember, we shall have no chance of building up superiority after


a surprise attack has informed this country that we are at war. The war will be decided with the forces which are available upon that day. I think the want of clear thinking on this subject of the relative importance of the air weapon and the Navy was displayed in all its naked simplicity by the First Lord of the Admiralty in a speech which he made at Southampton on 10th July last year, when he asked if development of the air arm had not led us to forget "the existence of the sea," and laid down the doctrine that, while wishing to see "all possible progress made in the air, it was upon the sea that this country and this Empire depend for their existence." He said:
This is the overwhelming reason that makes the reconstruction of our fleet so vitally important. We are now faced with rebuilding what virtually amounts to a new fleet.
Between 1922 and 1936 we spent £776,000,000 on the Navy and £225,000,000 only on the Air Force, and yet the Prime Minister and the First Lord are now telling the world that our Navy has got to be rebuilt. During those 14 years, while those colossal sums were being spent upon the Navy, the air weapon was growing steadily in potentiality. Yet the Navy had nearly half the money spent on defence and more than three times as much as the Air Force had. The First Lord tells us that the Navy must be rebuilt if we are to safeguard our imports of food during war, but he has never given us any reasons whatever for holding that opinion, and how can be reconcile that statement with the development of the air arm? This House has never yet been given any explanation as to how the ships bringing our food and our fuel will be guarded from air attack. How is protection to be afforded to those ships by the Navy alone?
What sort of a Navy is it that the First Lord is envisaging? We were five times as strong as Italy at the time that the Admiralty hoisted the white flag in the Mediterranean. The First Lord told us in June last year that had our Navy been twice as strong as it was, there would have been no Italo-Abyssinian crisis. According to the First Lord's statement, he is contemplating a Navy ten times as strong as the Italian Navy,

but where is the money to build that to come from? He said at Southampton:
To my naval advisers there is no question of air power and naval power being rivals,
but when our naval power came into rivalry with the Italian air power last year, it was our Navy which retired. How does the First Lord reconcile that statement, that there is no rivalry, with the following passage from his own speech, in which he said:
Air power has made what was once the most secure island in the world the most vulnerable society in Europe. For the first time in history the heart of our Empire has become vulnerable.
But in spite of these warnings he went on to speak of "our great programme of air reinforcement" yet only expressed the determination to reach air parity with the strongest air Power. He wants a Navy ten times as strong as the Italian Navy, but he only wants an Air Force equal to the Italian Air Force, although it is from the air that this blow against the heart of the Empire is to come, on his own admission. Could inconsistency possibly go further? The First Lord is one of those politicians who flit from office to office, never doing very well or very badly in any of them and always willing to come back "to oblige" after being given his notice. He was at the Air Ministry from 1922 to 1924 and from 1924 again until 1929, and when, in his own words, we were "the most vulnerable society in Europe," he, as Air Minister, allowed our Air Force to fall to the fifth or sixth place in the world. The First Lord says there is no rivalry between the sea and air power, and yet he admitted at Southampton that it is from the air and not from the sea that "the mortal blow might be struck at the heart of the Empire."
In spite of this statement of the First Lord's, it is high time that the allocation of money between the Defence Services be reconsidered and that the Air Force get a fairer allocation of the funds than they have been doing up to date. Unless this is done, the wish of the Mover of this Motion to see our air defence put upon a more secure footing will not be realised. In 1929 the Government said that we must have "a Home defence Air Force of sufficient strength to protect us against the strongest air force within striking distance." They have announced programme after programme since then,


and again to-day we have heard the same story, that we are behindhand with these programmes as we have been behindhand with them ever since 1923. Let us hope that 1937 will see an end of these delays and that in 1938 we may be able to say that this delay, this policy of ever late and never up-to-date and always too late, has been finally ended.

7.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I do not think the House would like to leave this subject without someone mentioning one side of it which has not, in my opinion, had due attention, and that is the question of ground defence. I am sure the House is aware of the tremendous efforts that are being made by the Air Ministry to strengthen the City of London by raising aircraft units. I am sorry that we have not been able to ask the Secretary of State for War or the Minister for the Coordination of Defence how the changeover from infantry to anti-aircraft units is getting on. The last speaker mentioned the vital question as to whether London is safe in its ground defence. It is possible that it is, and I only hope it is, but that should be our aim, so that any air Power attacking this country should not be able to attack it without getting pulled down from the skies. I would ask the Minister responsible for the antiaircraft units to see that their housing is adequate.
There have been complaints all over the place that the schemes for housing are inadequate, and I put forward the suggestion, as many other people have done, that if you are going to attract and keep Territorials into your anti-aircraft units, you must treat them properly. I am afraid the scheme which is being put forward now does not show that grasp of the situation which we would wish and meet the views which the commanding officers have put forward to the War Office. It would be thoroughly worth while to deal with this matter properly, and if you do, you will not only get your recruits, but you will be able to keep them. There are many subjects to which the right hon. Gentleman should address his attention, such as the adequacy of equipment, where these new guns are being placed, whether they are being put in the right places for training, as well as fighting and so on. If time permitted—

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

GROWING POWER OF EXECUTIVE.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
It is very nearly 157 years since a Motion in these terms was last moved in this House. On 6th April, 1780, Mr. Dunning moved a Motion couched in similar terms with regard to the powers of the Crown. The dangers which we believe exist to-day are not dissimilar from those which existed then, but they come not from the Crown, but from the servants of the Crown. My hon. Friends and I feel that this Motion is no less necessary now than it was a century and a half ago. We were confirmed in that view when we listened to the course of the Debate and the speeches that were made on that side of the House only yesterday. There are two aspects of this subject to which I want to call the attention of the House. The first is the continuous encroachment of the Executive at the expense of the House of Commons, with the result that this House becomes more and more subservient to the Government of the day. The second is the attempt that has been deliberately made in Statute after Statute in recent years to invest Government Departments with completely arbitrary powers. Hon Members will not be surprised if I have occasion to quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, and I should like to remind hon. Members of one passage which he wrote in his book published eight years ago:
The old despotism, which was defeated, offered Parliament a challenge. The new despotism, which is not yet defeated, gives Parliament an anaesthetic. The strategy is different, but the goal is the same. It is to subordinate Parliament, to evade the courts, and to render the will or caprice of the Executive unfettered and supreme.
I have sat in this House for only five years, but even during that time I do not think that anyone who has followed our proceedings can have failed to observe the increasing control of the Government of the day over the business of the House of Commons. By various expedients in quite recent times it has been made more and more difficult to criticise or to offer


anything in the nature of informed opposition to the Measures which are brought forward by the Executive. I know that it is inevitable in these days that we in Parliament should delegate a good deal of authority to bodies outside, and I know that we have to give Government Departments considerable power to issue Orders, Rules and Regulations; but the feature of almost all Regulations, even when they come under the review of this House and require affirmative Resolutions, is that they cannot be amended. We cannot do more than either accept or reject them as a whole.
The first point I want to make is that when the Government insist on dealing with vital matters, matters of great moment, not by Statute, but by Regulations and by Orders, it is a real loss to the authority of this House. There are two examples which will at once come to the minds of hon. Members. The first is the Unemployment Regulations under the Unemployment Act, 1932, and the second is the schemes brought forward under the Agricultural Marketing 9cts. I do not need to labour this theme, because every hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency is well aware that the Unemployment Regulations were the most important proposals that have come before the House. They affect our constituents more intimately, and probably affect more of them than the great majority of the Acts of Parliament that we are required to pass through all their stages in both Houses. We can all recollect the Debates that we had on the last set of Regulations a few months ago, when, with great eloquence from all sides of the House, and with great heat, we carried on the discussion for three days and one night. Yet, in spite of the intense interest which was roused both inside and outside the House, in spite of all the criticism which was focussed on these Regulations from different sides, we were not able to alter a single line or a single word.
Take the example of the marketing schemes. This rather applies to hon. Members on the other side. We all know that these schemes are of great complexity and some of them have as many as 80 or 90 Clauses. They, too, affect intimately the livelihood of a large number of people, not only of the people who

are represented on the marketing boards, but a great many people who are not. Again and again, when these schemes came up to be approved by this House, I have heard hon. Members from that side of the House make the most severe criticism of this or that feature of the scheme, but they are always in the dilemma that they are unable to give effect to their criticisms in the Division Lobby unless they are prepared to reject the schemes as a whole. That may be a very convenient arrangement from the point of view of the Government Whips, but it is an arrangement which detracts in a very real sense from the dignity and authority of the House.
Another aspect of this matter to which I would refer is the growing practice—or so it seems to me—of introducing important measures which we are required to approve such a short time before they are due to be discussed that it is difficult for the great majority of Members to become thoroughly seized of the issues involved. Again, I will give the example of the Unemployment Regulations. When the first set of Regulations was introduced—the abortive Regulations which had to be withdrawn so hurriedly after they have been put into effect—they had taken the Unemployment Board and the Minister of Labour between them no less than 5· months to prepare, but the boo Members of this House were expected to know all about them in six days, because that was all the time that was given between issuing the Regulations and the date when we had to debate them. When we had the new Regulations in the summer of last year, although it had taken the Minister of Labour and the Unemployment Board something like 18 months to come to any conclusion as to the form and effect of those Regulations, this House was allowed the space of 12 days.
Again, the milk scheme was made available to Members only on a Friday with all its 90 Clauses and all its complexities, and we were expected to pass it into law on the following Thursday evening. That kind of thing makes it exceedingly difficult for the ordinary Member of the House to offer any kind of intelligent or informed criticism, or to appreciate the issues which he is called upon to decide. The fact that in so many cases now these orders, regulations


and schemes of one kind and another are presented such a short time before does reveal the attitude that we may expect from the Front Bench, namely, that it does not matter particularly if the House of Commons does not understand what comes before it, because it is not our business to understand but simply to pass the Measures presented to us.
I would also remind hon. Members of the difficulties we have had recently over the form of Money Resolutions. There have been in the last year or two most vigorous protests from hon. Members on all sides of the House against the practice of drafting Money Resolutions in such detail that it is impossible for hon. Members to move any substantial amendments to the Bills which follow. Those who were in the last House will recall the storm there was over the Special Areas Bill, when a Money Resolution was presented in which there were set out the names of all the Special Areas, so that afterwards, when the Bill came up for discussion, it was out of order for any Member to propose the addition of any new area. On that occasion you, Sir, were asked a question as to the rules of procedure and as to that particular Resolution, and you then replied:
If I were asked for my opinion on the subject, I should say that not only has the limit been reached, but that it has been rather exceeded in the amount of detail which is put into a Money Resolution.
A little later you said:
The powers given under the Rules of Procedure have really reached their limit"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1934; cols. 1236–7, Vol. 295.]
We were told at the time that Mr. Speaker's observations would be borne in mind by the Government. Last year, however, we had the Tithe Bill, in which the Government came to the House with a Money Resolution which occupies three columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I may, I will quote from another source, not one of my colleagues in this part of the House, but a very old member, the noble lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who, speaking on a Money Resolution to the Tithe Bill on 19th May last year said that the gravamen of the charge was that the way in which Financial Resolutions were now framed made it impossible for the House to exercise its authority. More and more the draftsman was framing Financial

Resolutions in such a way as to give the Chair no option but to rule the Amendments out of order. He added:
There has been a suggestion in some quarters that it is the object of every Government to instruct the draftsmen so to draft Financial resolutions as to make it almost impossible to amend them, and the cheers that greet my remark show that that view is generally held in all quarters of the House." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 1144, Vol. 312.]
I think, at any rate, that my hon. and learned Friend who will reply will agree that if these Resolutions are too tightly drawn, it is not the fault of the draftsmen, and we have to look for the responsibility rather higher up. I do not want to labour this side of the subject. I have given a number of examples which will be fresh in the recollection of almost all hon. Members. I do not say that any one of them is by itself of vital importance, but I do submit that they all exhibit the same tendency, and that their cumulative effect is to curtail the opportunity for effective debate to diminish Parliamentary control over legislation and over those other orders and measures which go out from time to time from this House, and finally to transform this House into a machine for registering the decrees of an omnipotent Executive.
I want to turn to the other aspect of the subject. In recent years a great many people have remarked on the enormous extent of the law-making powers which we now confer on Government Departments. It often happens that at the end of the year the bulk of the Statutory Rules and Orders which have come into effect greatly exceeds the bulk of the Statute Book itself, and the mere index of all the Statutory Rules and Orders which are now in force, all of them affecting somebody, occupies rather over 1,000 pages. I know that a great deal of this is unavoidable. I am not suggesting that it would be possible or desirable for the House to scrutinise every Traffic Regulation or other Order or direction which a Government Department wanted to give. The submission I want to make is that is the most complete folly that at a time when we confer these greater and greater powers upon Government Departments we should weaken and destroy the only safeguards which prevent those powers being exceeded or abused. That, in


my submission, is what has been happening in recent years.
The only effective safeguard we have managed to invent so far is the control of the courts of law. When a Minister makes a Regulation in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, if anyone is aggrieved or adversely affected by it he can go to the courts, and if the courts find that the Minister has exceeded the powers which Parliament intended to give him they will quash the Order. That is an essential feature of what we know in this country as the rule of law. In this country we have never had, and I hope we never shall have, any system of droit administratif. We have always laid it down that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the land, administered in the ordinary courts, and a Minister or official who exceeds his authority must answer in the ordinary courts precisely like anybody else. It is common knowledge that in a number of recent Statutes there have been inserted Clauses which have been deliberately designed to give Ministers and their Departments arbitrary powers, and to prevent the courts from inquiring into the legality of any Orders or Regulations they may make. I am not going into more detail than I can help. There is, in the first place, the Henry the VIII Clause, as it is commonly called, which gives a Minister power to dispense with or to modify the provisions of Acts of Parliament. An example of that occurs in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, where it is laid down in Section 67 that if any difficulty arises in bringing into operation any of the provisions of that Act:
The Minister may by Order remove the difficulty, and any such Order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the Order into effect.
It has frequently been observed that that, stripped of its technical verbiage, is simply the old dispensing power which this House refused to grant to Tudor and Stuart Kings. Secondly, there are the Clauses which occur in some Statutes empowering the Minister to make such Regulations as he thinks may be necessary or desirable. We had a recent example in the last Session, when we were dealing with the Sugar Reorganisation Bill. In that Bill, as originally introduced, there occurred these words:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules for any Order with respect to which rules are required by the provisions of this Act,
And went on:
or are in his opinion necessary for the purposes of this Act.
In other words, the only criterion as to whether the Regulation was necessary or even, I submit, valid, was to be the personal opinion of the Minister. It is true that when representations were made, from this side of the House, those words were dropped from the Bill, but it is rather suspicious that it should be necessary to move Amendments of that kind. Why is it that we have provisions of this kind put in one Bill after another? Most objectionable of all, in my view, is the familiar Clause which runs like this:
The Minister may confirm the Order, and the confirmation shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with and that the Order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act.
The only defence of that which has been put forward is that it is necessary for reasons of administrative convenience. It has been urged by various people on different sides of the House, on different occasions, that it would be very awkward that schemes which had been made, it may be after a long inquiry and much preparation, should be opposed by an application to the courts, but I ask hon. Members to think what exactly this Clause means. It means that the Minister may do something which is ultra vires, something which may be illegal, and yet nobody who is aggrieved or concerned has any remedy whatsoever. I should like to quote one passage which will convey to Members the view which His Majesty's Judges take of this sort of legislation. This passage occurred during the conduct, a year or two ago, of a case in which a Clause of that kind, though I do not say with those actual words, was under consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was arguing on behalf of the Government. This is how the interchange, if I may so describe it, ran:
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: IS your argument, then, that any Order of the Minister, however far it may depart from the Act, has effect as though enacted in the Act, if it purports to he made under the Act?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is so, my Lord. Of course, it does not sound very


pretty in that form—(Laughter)—and I would prefer to say that the court may not inquire whether it is made under the Act.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Do you say that if under the name of an, improvement scheme under this Act the Minister sanctioned anything whatever it would have statutory effect?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that is so.
Mr. JUSTICE TALBOT: Suppose Parliament had intended to say what the Attorney-General says they have said, how could they have expressed it better than they have done?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: They might have said 'After the passing of the Act the Minister may do what he likes.'
Mr. JUSTICE SWIFT: That is what they have said.
There is no comment which I could make to add to that. I only want to submit that when we give to a Government Department or to a Minister power to make Regulations and to deprive the courts of the right to inquire into the authority or the legality of those Regulations we are within measureable distance of government by decree, and government by decree, after all, is the hallmark of dictatorships everywhere.
As everyone knows, it is not only legislative powers that we confer upon Government Departments. We also give them very considerable judicial and quasi-judicial powers. If it has to be decided whether anyone comes within the Health Insurance Acts, and, I think I am right in saying, the Unemployment Insurance Acts it has to be decided by the Minister or someone appointed on his behalf. If a doctor is charged with any professional malpractice and there is some question of striking him off the panel, that, again, has to be decided by the Minister of Health or people responsible to him. Those are not administrative questions at all. It is obvious that they are purely judicial questions in the sense that the tribunal—whatever it is, the person—making the decision has to find out the facts, apply the law to them and come to his decision purely on the merits of the case. Only yesterday we were discussing a form of tribunal set up to consider the dismissal of five employés in the dockyards, and there were hon. Members opposite who put forward the argument that that had to be because of the urgency of the case, because the safety of the State was involved, but not a single hon. Member in any part of the House suggested that such a tribunal in itself was either preferable to or as good as

one of the ordinary judicial tribunals of this country.
It must be obvious that a Minister, or an official for that matter, is not the right person in any circumstances to undertake a purely judicial inquiry, because the very fact that he is a good administrator may result in making him a bad judge. I have referred to the Ministerial jurisdiction as regards striking doctors off the panel, and should like to give an example to show that very often justice is not administered before Ministerial tribunals in the same way as it is in the ordinary courts. In the year 1925 charges of negligence were preferred against two doctors, whom I will call Dr. X and Dr. Y. A tribunal appointed by the Minister and responsible to him heard the charges, and both doctors were acquitted. In the case of Dr. X the report was that there might have been an error of judgment, and in the case of Dr. Y those who heard the evidence were of opinion that the charge ought never to have been brought. The official decision rested with the Minister, and he proceeded to fine one doctor £10 and the other acting, apparently, on the lines of the humorous verdict, "Not guilty, but do not do it again."
I do not know whether all hon. Members are familiar with the legend about the origin of the Clock Tower at Westminster and perhaps I may be pardoned for repeating it. It is said that many centuries ago, when the judges sat in Westminster Hall, a certain chief justice was guilty of altering a court record. He did it in order to reduce the amount of a fine which a poor man would otherwise have had to pay. This came to the ears of the King, and he forthwith fined the chief justice the sum of 800 marks, and when the fine was paid he decreed that the money should be used for the building of a clock tower just outside Westminster Hall, so that when the sound of the clock striking the hours and the quarters was heard in Westminster Hall His Majesty's judges should always be reminded indifferently to administer justice. In these days the judges have moved out of earshot of the Clock Tower, but when so many judicial functions are transferred to Government Departments we may hope that the sound of the clock striking the hours and the quarters is still audible in Whitehall.
I am not going to delay the House by enumerating all the many occasions on which we have conferred quasi-judicial functions upon Ministers and their Departments. There are any number of occasions when a Minister is directed to come to a certain decision, probably administrative, but is directed to follow a certain procedure and to hold a public inquiry at which the parties interested may be heard.
I am quite ready to agree that there must be many questions which can properly be decided by that method, but I want to submit that the procedure which has been adopted up to now—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members not being present

The House was adjourned at Two Minutes after Eight o'Clock until To-morrow.